Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $30,226
Woo hoo!! And the first 34% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by naturalman1975

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Australia releases postage stamps in honour of Victoria Cross recipients

    01/22/2015 2:20:50 AM PST · 4 of 6
    naturalman1975 to xp38
    Are you telling me the Dame Edna/Barry Humphries strip of stamps was part of the Legends series? There was also a release of Rock/Pop music acts a couple of years ago which I also assume is part of the Legend series. This was one of the reasons I gave up stamp collecting new issues and eventually the whole hobby btw.

    Yes, Barry Humphries was the subject of the 2006 Australian Legends series, and Legends of Australian Music were 2013. (Cold Chisel, Men At Work, INXS, The Seekers, AC/DC, Kylie Minogue, John Farnham, Olivia Newton-John, Paul Kelly, and Molly Meldrum).

    I actually think Barry Humphries was worthy of inclusion, although I was surprised he got the entire year to himself (Sir Donald Bradman, Arthur Boyd, and Slim Dusty were the only others who got a whole year themselves, rather than being included in a group - and with the exception of Bradman who was the first so the concept was still new, I've never understood why some years that do a single stamp, and others they do a group).

  • Australia releases postage stamps in honour of Victoria Cross recipients

    01/21/2015 11:34:47 PM PST · 1 of 6
  • Muslims at WW II Cemetery (British Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Benghazi)

    01/21/2015 1:19:09 PM PST · 29 of 29
    naturalman1975 to defconw

    Yes, it’s disgusting, but it’s also old news at this point. This video is nearly three years old.

  • Prayer request = Mrs Don-o (Update 194, 255, 318, 365, 394, 416)

    01/19/2015 10:45:07 PM PST · 227 of 417
    naturalman1975 to don-o

    Hang in there. I add my thoughts and prayers to the multitude.

  • The Left’s gravy train derailing

    01/19/2015 2:57:27 PM PST · 18 of 22
    naturalman1975 to driftless2
    But the recent election of Abbott is good news for all conservatives. Howard was a good conservative as well...even though if I recall he supported global warming legislation. I hope Abbott is dead set against it

    Howard was, among other things, a political realist. He supported some legislation on 'climate change' because at the time that's what a lot of voters wanted, and it wasn't an important enough issue to him to spend political capital on opposing it. He wanted to fight elections on the issues thought mattered most. Abbott is in a different situation - the pressure for 'climate change' laws is a lot less now and there's also significantly more opposition to major changes (even most of those in favour of such laws, now only want minor changes not the major ones they were demanding, so while he pays a little bit of lip service to it, it's all he needs to do on that issue - but if it became a big issue politically again, I think he'd head back towards Howard's approach if he thought it was politically a good idea. The basic difference is they'd regard on getting industry to try and 'fix' any problems by giving them business incentives to do so - rather than saying it's a job for big government. The idea really is that most problems are better solved by the government getting out of the way of solutions, rather than trying to impose its own.

  • Martin Luther King Jr., That Great Religious Fundamentalist?

    01/19/2015 2:52:07 PM PST · 3 of 11
    naturalman1975 to millegan
    The thing is King was standing up against genuine injustices. He wasn't standing up for the rights of criminals and wasters who don't take responsibility for their own choices in life. But for decent people who really were being subjected to real injustices.

    He was hardly a saint in his private life but I really do believe that in a lot of matters, he was on the side of the angels.

    There's a huge difference between standing up for the right to vote as guaranteed in the law - and standing up for the 'rights' of people who break the law with impunity.

  • The Left’s gravy train derailing

    01/19/2015 2:33:25 PM PST · 12 of 22
    naturalman1975 to Born to Conserve

    No, I’ve been a member of FreeRepublic for over ten years and one of the main things I do is share stories from Australia (and to a lesser extent the UK) that are I think are likely to be of interest to fellow conservatives.

    The site I’m sharing this article from is Australia’s only national daily newspaper - ‘The Australian’. It’s owned by Murdoch’s NewsCorp and it’s one of the most significant sources of news and opinion in Australia.

    Unfortunately it puts a lot of stuff behind paywalls nowadays. The other major Murdoch papers in Australia (which are based out of the four largest cities - the (Sydney) ‘Daily Telegraph’, the (Melbourne) ‘Herald Sun’, the (Brisbane) ‘Courier Mail’, and the (Adelaide) ‘Advertiser’ aren’t quite as bad (their subscription technology is different) but it’s also an issue at times. But it’s capitalism in action, really - they are charging for a product a lot of people are willing to pay for.

    The two major left wing papers in Australia, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ and the (Melbourne) ‘Age’ don’t block as many articles, but they don’t let their stuff be shared here, and as they are hard left there’s not much people here would want to read anyway (except perhaps on “knowing the enemy” grounds.)

    Fortunately ‘The Australian’, and the more conservative state dailies, do allow for the posting of reasonably large excerpts here (in line with FreeRepublics 300 word policy, it seems), so I can generally at least try to share the sense of the article as I have tried to do here, so anybody who is interested can maybe track it down - sometimes that’s not that difficult once you have a few specific sentences to search for, because it may be available in google, or may also be published somewhere else as well.

  • The Left’s gravy train derailing

    01/19/2015 2:01:29 PM PST · 1 of 22
    Unfortunately, this editorial is behind a paywall so most people won't be able to read it. I'm sorry to those people, but unfortunately, this is happening more and more often. You can sometimes get to these articles by posting the first sentence in a google search.
  • [Canada] Education Minister: Catholic schools will be required to teach new sex ed program

    01/15/2015 7:09:48 PM PST · 37 of 50
    naturalman1975 to JudyinCanada

    Governments can make mandates without providing money.

    That’s what happened here in Australia.

    Catholic schools started to be compelled in the 1950s to toe the government line on certain issues. To begin with, it was an unfunded mandate. They didn’t receive any government funding, but it didn’t stop the government making them follow directives when they wanted to.

    Eventually, it was decided here that governments would provide some funding but that came after the mandates.

    (The ‘Goulburn School Strike’ was the seminal moment - in response to a government’s unfunded mandate, the Bishop of Goulburn shut down the Catholic schools and told parents to enrol their children at the local government schools - which could not come close to absorbing that many children).

    Refusing funding doesn’t guarantee non-interference. If governments want to interfere in private schools, they will do so, whether they provide funding or not.

  • [Canada] Education Minister: Catholic schools will be required to teach new sex ed program

    01/15/2015 7:01:36 PM PST · 36 of 50
    naturalman1975 to Morgana

    The thing is, not taking the money wouldn’t necessarily help.

    I teach in a Catholic secondary school in Australia. Our system doesn’t work in quite the way Canada’s does, but private schools (including Catholic schools) in Australia do get a degree of government funding.

    And we get do get told sometimes there are certain things that the government requires us to teach.

    But it’s virtually never linked to funding. We could refuse to accept the funding - and we’d still be forced to teach these things.

    The problem is if governments want to interfere, it doesn’t have to be tied to funding. They have the power.

    So we take the money - and that makes private schooling more accessible here. A third of all Australian children are in private schools. And that also leads to major improvements in the state school system, because they don’t come close to having a monopoly. Parents have more choice and they use it.

  • Access fee a bridge too far for bushfire survivor (charged a fee to use bridge he built)

    01/13/2015 5:56:18 PM PST · 13 of 16
    naturalman1975 to Mastador1

    Some of the articles are restricted to subscribers, some aren’t. As I am a subscriber, I can’t easily tell which is which, because I see them all.

    The only major Australian newspapers which don’t limit at least some articles to subscribers are ones that won’t even allow links to their articles to be posted here, let alone reasonably substantial excerpts. They are also among the two most left wing sources of news in the country, so even if they did allow it, I’d be reluctant to use them here.

    I’m sorry to those who can’t read everything they’d like to, but it is (fortunately) still a capitalist society, and these newspapers do want to make some money.

  • Access fee a bridge too far for bushfire survivor (charged a fee to use bridge he built)

    01/13/2015 3:54:40 PM PST · 1 of 16
    The Black Saturday bushfires on 2009 were the worst natural disaster in the history of the state of Victoria, Australia. Over the course of one afternoon, on Saturday 7th February 2009, in the face of temperatures of 116F, less than 6% humidity, and 80MPH winds, around 2000 square miles was burnt out, several towns were destroyed, and 173 people died.

    The loss of this bridge was obviously only a minor part of all that - but the idea that this man who rebuilt it (to proper professional standards) when the government refused can be charged a fee to use it, really does seem pretty absurd.

  • Cartoonist 'under police watch' (Australian cartoonist facing death threats - I wonder why...)

    01/12/2015 8:54:56 PM PST · 9 of 11
    naturalman1975 to Nateman

    I assume that’s the one, yes. It’s not being described in the articles I’ve seen and certainly not being republished in them, so it’s hard to know for certain.

  • Cartoonist 'under police watch' (Australian cartoonist facing death threats - I wonder why...)

    01/12/2015 7:26:34 PM PST · 4 of 11
    naturalman1975 to MeshugeMikey

    Interesting - it’s still up for me.

  • Cartoonist 'under police watch' (Australian cartoonist facing death threats - I wonder why...)

    01/12/2015 7:20:38 PM PST · 1 of 11
    Mr Pickering's website - I believe the cartoon in question is the one still on the page.
  • J.K. Rowling Just Schooled Rupert Murdoch For His Ignorant Anti-Muslim Comments

    01/12/2015 12:09:08 AM PST · 17 of 66
    naturalman1975 to BwanaNdege

    Not to mention, that Harry did not complete his schooling at Hogwarts anyway (he left after his sixth year, not returning for the seventh, instead fighting the final year of the war that year) and according to JK Rowling, did not go back afterwards (nor did Ron, although Hermione, naturally, did).

  • J.K. Rowling Just Schooled Rupert Murdoch For His Ignorant Anti-Muslim Comments

    01/12/2015 12:06:29 AM PST · 15 of 66
    naturalman1975 to BwanaNdege

    But in the UK, one does not ‘graduate’ from secondary school at all (which is what Hogwarts is, after all). The term is starting to spread into British English because of the American influence, where it is a correct term, but historically and correctly in Britain, one only graduates from a university (which is why those studying their Bachelors degree are undergraduates).

    So whichever way you look at it, it’s bad English :)

    Personally I think ‘graduated from...’ is also better in British English regardless, and would see ‘graduated’ without the ‘from’ as more an American idiom.

  • Muslim man hailed for life-saving courage during Paris siege

    01/11/2015 7:29:58 PM PST · 6 of 37
    naturalman1975 to Kaslin

    Yes, I think this man is a hero.

    What worries me is the idea he’s somehow a greater hero because he is a Muslim - and that seems to be the line the press takes.

    He is a hero because of what he did - not because of his religion.

    Same as the Muslim police officer who was killed. I have the same respect for him as any other police officer killed in the line of duty. But he’s getting much more coverage in the press than the other police officer killed (Franck Brinsolaro) simply because he’s Muslim.

  • Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no

    01/11/2015 2:07:06 PM PST · 29 of 31
    naturalman1975 to Alberta's Child
    The author here is full of crap. You can't have it both ways. You can't hold up "freedom of speech" as it if were some kind of sacred institution, then criticize someone for refusing to publish something for any reason whatsoever.

    You certainly can if you know the reasons.

    Did it occur to the author that maybe a lot of these media outlets found the content of Charlie Hebdo's publication offensive?

    The author in this case is one of Australia's most prominent journalists writing for (and in) it's largest circulation newspaper. He also writes for the country's largest circulation newspaper. He knows the editors personally and has probably close to daily interactions with him. He knows the owners personally (including the ultimate owner of the papers, Rupert Murdoch). He has personally been pursued through the courts by left wing groups who succeeded in having two of his articles banned because they argued they 'racially vilified' people, and he's been threatened with similar cases on other occasions, and watched as his editors, and other employers, refused to do everything legally possible to defend him out of fear that they would be put at risk, thus endangering the very idea of freedom of the press in this country.

    So I don't think he's full of crap. He knows damned well why newspapers in this country didn't print the cartoons. If he was allowed to and nobody else would do it, I'm sure he'd be putting them in his own columns just to make the point. But there's no way his paper's editors would let him and he knows why.

  • Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no

    01/10/2015 11:19:46 PM PST · 1 of 31
  • Why does the military insist on saluting?

    01/09/2015 3:45:36 PM PST · 56 of 56
    naturalman1975 to yarddog

    Thank you - I was trying to work out who they were. I was pretty sure about Brooke, wasn’t sure about Simpson, though.

  • Why does the military insist on saluting?

    01/09/2015 3:04:29 PM PST · 53 of 56
    naturalman1975 to SkyDancer; yarddog
    Enemy snipers in the area? My dad told me that in ‘Nam officers wouldn’t wear insignia for that very reason.

    It's a possibility - it's also very possible that with that many VIPs in the area, they'd been expressly instructed not to keep saluting them - otherwise they'd have been doing nothing but saluting all day :) and not getting on with their work.

    Churchill could also pose a dilemma when he was in uniform. He typically wore the uniform of an Air Commodore of the Royal Air Force (and he was entitled to do so because he did hold that rank) but while that is a pretty senior rank (it's one star), it was considerably below his status as a Head of Government. So when he was in uniform, did higher ranking (two star and above) salute him or did he salute them? As I understand it, they never formally worked out that piece of protocol.

  • Why does the military insist on saluting?

    01/08/2015 10:10:03 PM PST · 42 of 56
    naturalman1975 to Covenantor
    IIRC, an English unit also used the death's head insignia.

    They still do - the Queen's Royal Lancers have used it since 1993, having inherited it from the 17th/21st Lancers who, in 1922, inherited it from The 17th Lancers (Duke of Cambridge's Own), who were raised in 1759.

    They are sometimes known as the "Death or Glory Boys".

  • Why does the military insist on saluting?

    01/08/2015 10:02:17 PM PST · 41 of 56
    naturalman1975 to SkyDancer
    Well the way my dad explained it, the lower rank salutes first and the higher rank returns it.

    And your Dad was right - that is the normal protocol. But the return of the salute is important. It is both rude and disrepectful for somebody not to return a salute (unless, of course, they have a good reason - hands full, etc) and anybody who goes around not doing it will rapidly get a reputation as somebody who isn't worthy of respect, because they don't return it.

    (Please note, I'm not talking about an occasional mistake - I'm talking about when there is a pattern. Sometimes you honestly might not notice).

    Just after I was commissioned as a sub-lieutenant (lowest commissioned rank in the Royal Australian Navy), I found myself approaching Admiral Sir Victor Smith on a busy street (he was the Chief of all Australian Forces at the tims). He was with his wife and he was carrying some packages. As we approached, he handed all the packages to his wife, precisely so he'd be in a position to return my salute. There was no question I would salute him and if he had decided not to return it, I would have just had to live with it - it's not like I could have complained. But he would not have been the man he was if he hadn't returned the salute - and I would have lost respect for him (and believe me, I had immense respect for him - never mind his rank, the man was a genuine war hero). And any other serviceman who saw it would have lost respect for him as well. It was also, honestly, a thrill to have my salute returned - I'd worked very hard for my commission and it felt like all that hard work was somehow being acknowledged by the fact that I was at least worthy of the great man's attention for a second.

  • Radical Islam and western values cannot coexist peacefully

    01/08/2015 9:45:28 PM PST · 6 of 71
    naturalman1975 to naturalman1975
    Arise, children of the Motherland!
    The day of glory is at hand
    Over us the bloodstained banner,
    Of tyranny now waves! Of tyranny now waves!
    Oh do you hear there in our fields
    The roar of those fierce fighting men?
    Who came right here into our midst
    To slaughter sons, wifes and kin

    To arms, oh citizens!
    Form up in serried ranks!
    March on, march on!
    And drench our fields
    With their tainted blood!

    What do they want this horde of slaves,
    Of traitors and conspiratorial kings?
    For whom these vile chains,
    These long-prepared irons? These long-prepared irons?
    Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage!
    What methods must be taken;
    It is we they dare plan
    To return to the old slavery!

    To arms, oh citizens!
    Form up in serried ranks!
    March on, march on!
    And drench our fields
    With their tainted blood!

    What! These foreign cohorts
    They would make laws in our courts!
    What! These mercenary phalanxes
    Would cut down our warrior sons! Would cut down our warrior sons!
    Good Lord! By chained hands!
    Our brow would yield under the yoke!
    The vile despots would have themselves be
    The masters of destiny!

    To arms, oh citizens!
    Form up in serried ranks!
    March on, march on!
    And drench our fields
    With their tainted blood!

    Tremble, tyrants and traitors,
    The shame of all good men!
    Tremble! Your parricidal schemes
    Will receive their just reward. Will receive their just reward!
    Against you we are all soldiers.
    If they fall, our young heroes,
    France will bear new ones
    Ready to join the fight against you.

    To arms, oh citizens!
    Form up in serried ranks!
    March on, march on!
    And drench our fields
    With their tainted blood!

    Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors
    Bear or hold back your wounds!
    Spare these sad victims,
    That they regret taking up arms against us! That they regret taking up arms against us!
    But not these bloody despots!
    These accomplices of Bouillé!
    All these tigers who pitilessly
    Ripped out their mothers' wombs !

    To arms, oh citizens!
    Form up in serried ranks!
    March on, march on!
    And drench our fields
    With their tainted blood!

    Supreme devotion to our motherland,
    Guides and sustains avenging hands
    Liberty, oh dearest Liberty,
    Come fight with your shieldings bands. Come fight with your shieldings bands.
    Beneath our banner come, oh Victory,
    Run at your soul-stirring cry.
    Oh come, come see your foes now die,
    Witness your pride and our glory.

    To arms, oh citizens!
    Form up in serried ranks!
    March on, march on!
    And drench our fields
    With their tainted blood!

    An English translation of La Marsellaise the national anthem of France.

    To arms, oh citizens!
    Form up in serried ranks!
    March on, march on!
    And drench our fields
    With their tainted blood!

    There are men and women all over the world who would join with France to do this.

  • Radical Islam and western values cannot coexist peacefully

    01/08/2015 9:36:30 PM PST · 1 of 71
  • Baby dead in police chase tragedy in Constitution Hill (Sydney, Australia)

    01/08/2015 6:26:13 PM PST · 1 of 14
    A terrible tragedy - but the number of people seeking to blame the police rather than the criminal driver is disturbing me.
  • Why does the military insist on saluting?

    01/07/2015 11:35:55 PM PST · 34 of 56
    naturalman1975 to Mad Dawgg
    The obvious one for the US is the saluting of a recipient of the Medal of Honor. You may be interested to know that American tradition is now being incorporated into Commonwealth militaries where it is becoming tradition that anybody should salute the recipient of a Victoria Cross.

    An Australian example can be seen here at youtube.

    Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston AC AFC: As the highest ranking member of the Australian Defence Force, there has been no current serving member that I salute, until now.

    Though there is no statutory requirement, tradition holds that even the most senior officer will salute a Victoria Cross recipient as a mark of the utmost respect for their act of valour.

    It will be my great honour from this moment forth to salute Trooper Mark Donaldson, VC.

    (The occasion was the first awarding of a Victoria Cross to an Australian soldier since Vietnam)

  • Why does the military insist on saluting?

    01/07/2015 8:42:05 PM PST · 25 of 56
    naturalman1975 to SkyDancer
    It’s a sign of respect to a higher officer.

    Who should return the salute, showing mutual respect. That is a key part of it as well.


    01/07/2015 5:07:13 PM PST · 80 of 132
    naturalman1975 to Reverend Wright

    So am I - I have a .38 precisely because I believed at the time that was the most I could get without a more specialised licence.

    This is part of the genuine problems we have with the laws. They are sometimes really hard to navigate.

    (I’m now comfortable with the 38, so I’m living with the situation - but I wish things were a lot simpler).


    01/07/2015 4:01:44 PM PST · 73 of 132
    naturalman1975 to tillacum
    Not this garbage again. It just keeps coming up here over and over again.

    There are millions of legally held firearms in private hands in Australia. I own a number of them myself.

    People in America have been lied to about the firearms situation in Australia. We have our share of dumb gun laws - but we've got plenty of guns.

    This is the webpage of my local gun shop - and it's actually got a fairly limited range compared to some places.

  • Lucky homeowner reveals heroic effort of neighbour that fought off devastating bushfires...

    01/06/2015 5:03:07 PM PST · 4 of 12
    naturalman1975 to Zhang Fei

    Yes - not sure if it applies in this case, but it does happen here. They have also been known to prevent backburning that would create better firebreaks at times.

  • Lucky homeowner reveals heroic effort of neighbour that fought off devastating bushfires...

    01/06/2015 4:44:05 PM PST · 2 of 12
    naturalman1975 to naturalman1975

    Bushfires are terrible - but they bring out some of the great moments in some people.

  • Lucky homeowner reveals heroic effort of neighbour that fought off devastating bushfires...

    01/06/2015 4:43:26 PM PST · 1 of 12
  • NT (Australia) - second highest... gun ownership in the nation but the lowest rate of firearm crime

    01/05/2015 9:59:51 PM PST · 9 of 9
    naturalman1975 to yarddog
    A zoo employee said people should be careful as they can be dangerous.

    Yeah, roos have a really savage kick than can do a lot of damage. They're generally not vicious and are more likely to get away from danger than attack, but if one feels it is cornered, you don't want to be between it and an escape route.

  • NT (Australia) - second highest... gun ownership in the nation but the lowest rate of firearm crime

    01/05/2015 5:28:43 PM PST · 3 of 9
    naturalman1975 to demshateGod

    I don’t think we’re ever likely to be a gun owners paradise. Really, what I want more than anything is one simple change.

    “Personal security” being explicitly added to the list of reasons a person can own a firearm.

    At the moment, because of the requirement that you provide a reason, and the fact that that expressly isn’t a reason, means you have to jump through overly convoluted hoops - a lot of people, for example, join a target shooting club, just so they can use that as a reason because it’s on the list.

    I’m not saying a lot more change wouldn’t be nice. But that one change would have a huge positive impact.

  • NT (Australia) - second highest... gun ownership in the nation but the lowest rate of firearm crime

    01/05/2015 5:18:45 PM PST · 1 of 9
  • FReeper Canteen ~ Hall of Heroes: Jack C Montgomery ~ January 05, 2015

    01/04/2015 6:23:49 PM PST · 16 of 65
    naturalman1975 to Kathy in Alaska

    I can never get enough of stories of heroism like this.

    When I was at risk during my service - well, I always did my duty, but I tried to stay as safe as I could. Putting yourself at risk ‘above and beyond the call of duty’ takes something very special indeed.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 5:01:07 PM PST · 50 of 52
    naturalman1975 to matginzac

    I am aware there has been contact between them. That doesn’t make them close friends. But even if they were at some stage, it’s a long way from that to other allegations.

    I am aware of all the reports in the media. I’ve been checking them to see if they told me anything new (and on a few minor issues they have) I just also know more about it than just what is easily accessible in the media and the complications involved.

    I won’t defend the Duke of York for everything he has done. Personally I think he should have ended contact with Epstein a lot earlier than he did. He’s certainly not a perfect person, he’s made some clangers at times - but the extremely serious accusations currently being made are completely at odds with the man I know.

    I could just about believe him being involved with some of the less serious stuff - it would surprise me, but I wouldn’t dismiss it. The really serious stuff - it needs to be fully investigated, but I hope he comes out clean and would be very surprised if he didn’t.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 3:25:04 PM PST · 46 of 52
    naturalman1975 to matginzac
    Just want to point out that Epstein pled guilty to soliciting an under age girl for sex and Andrew continued to “hang out” with the guy after he served his very light sentence of 13 are judged by the friends you choose.

    Yes, and that choice disturbs me greatly - assuming it's accurate, which I don't necessarily assume. But it's a far cry from the other accusations.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 3:23:54 PM PST · 45 of 52
    naturalman1975 to sunrise_sunset
    All these guys were partying with a serial pedophile for years and knew nothing ?

    Just because the media says they were, doesn't mean they were.

    Understand that, you're not necessarily getting facts when you see gossip in the media.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 3:20:52 PM PST · 44 of 52
    naturalman1975 to yldstrk
    That makes no sense that Andrew would have better protection than Harry, so I question what you are putting out.

    If you understand the reasons, it makes a lot of sense.

    Though Harry is higher up the succession than his Uncle Andrew, his Uncle actually is actually senior, 'outranking' him in the heirarchy of the Royal Family and in the British Order of Precedence (The Duke of York is fourth in the Order, Prince Harry is seventh). This is because he is the son of a sovereign as opposed to the grandson of a sovereign, and also because the Duke is a Royal Duke (and Harry is untitled in his own right) and though Harry now holds the higher position in succession (fourth as opposed to fifth), he's actually only ever been as high as third in line - whereas the Duke of York was second in line from his birth in 1960 until the birth of Prince William in 1982.

    It also comes down to formal role - Harry is not a 'full time Royal' - he undertakes only a very limited number of official duties at present. The Duke of York is a full timer. He is also (along with the Prince of Wales) one of the two members of the Royal Family who routinely act as Counsellors of State, meaning they actually do exercise some actual power in the government of the UK (two Counsellors of State acting together have the power to carry out the constitutional duties of the Monarch if the Monarch is absent - they can preside over the Privy Council, and sign state documents, for example) - William and Harry, though they have both formally been Counsellors of State since they were 21, rarely exercise their roles, and the Duke of Edinburgh does so a lot less than he used to.

    It's also a matter of wanting the protection. Prince Harry wants as little as possible, because he regards his protection detail as interfering with his life. The Duke of York on the other hand, regards having personal protection as appropriate to his status and knows if he refuses it, some people might try to take it off him.

    Finally, it comes down to their ability to protect themselves. Harry has successfully argued that he is capable of providing a certain degree of his own protection, as he is trained in close combat as a soldier to a much greater degree than his uncle was as a sailor. He's also a lot younger and fitter.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 2:53:28 AM PST · 20 of 52
    naturalman1975 to Reaganez
    In London where the age of consent is 16. And paid $15k.

    While I am to an extent defending the Prince on the grounds that I think this story is exceedingly unlikely to be true for various reasons, it's important that the legal situation is understood. While the general age of consent in the UK is 16, and prostitution is also legal in the UK, it is still a crime to pay anybody under 18 for sex.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 2:26:19 AM PST · 17 of 52
    naturalman1975 to BunnySlippers

    Prince Harry wasn’t doing anything illegal. Big difference. He was also fairly immune from any scandal from such behaviour (well, he was at that stage - he had the ‘boys will be boys’ defence available - now he’s turned thirty, he’s been told he can’t rely on that anyone). He also doesn’t always have personal close protection. I’m not going to say anymore about that. But the Duke of York on the other hand basically does always have a police bodyguard with him.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 2:03:38 AM PST · 13 of 52
    naturalman1975 to iowamark
    And often exaggerated too - although he certainly isn't as pure as the driven snow and I would not be at all surprised to hear of relationships with women. But there's a big difference between that and sex parties - I would find that surprising, but not astonishing. And I would find it absolutely astonishing if he'd done anything close to illegal. For a start, he's accompanied by a police officer virtually everywhere he goes and while they would turn a blind eye to 'innocent' activities, I would certainly not expect their discretion to extend to anything like this. And there are other people around him to 'protect him from himself' if he even came close to do something this scandalous. I'd have done it myself in certain situations (I never had to, but there are expectations placed on their friends and colleagues). I can't know for certain. I've never been involved in a situation where it actually came up - but it really would astonish me.

    It's not just a matter of it being at odds with the behaviour I'd expect of the man - although it is to some extent. It's the other factors involved.

    I also wouldn't be expecting the Palace to be so strident in their denials unless they truly knew there wasn't a case. They are going much further than they need to - and their job above all else is to protect the Queen. Her Majesty might not throw her son to the wolves (although if he actually did something like this, I wouldn't honestly put it past her) but the courtiers certainly would if they thought it was needed.

  • Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex claims against Prince Andrew

    01/04/2015 12:58:10 AM PST · 8 of 52
    naturalman1975 to A Formerly Proud Canadian

    I know the Duke of York - served alongside him. I would be astonished if there is any truth to any involvement with an underage girl - absolutely astonished - and would be reasonably shocked about his involvement with anything like what is being alleged even if the girls were fully legal. But having said that, there are plenty of parents who do seem to let their daughters do these things, unfortunately.

    It must be fully investigated - if it’s false it is very important the men accused are cleared. If there’s any truth to it, then it damned well should be proven and the full force of the law should apply to anybody who did the wrong thing. But it’s so easy to make allegations and so easy for mud to stick.

  • Botched executions prompting states to look at suffocating, electrocuting, or even shooting

    01/03/2015 11:08:16 PM PST · 82 of 167
    naturalman1975 to bkopto

    The experts in England in the mid 20th century (the Pierrpoint family, and a few others) got hanging down to such a fine art that they could have the condemned dead within less than a minute of the cell door first being opened. The record was James Inglis hanged by Albert Pierrepoint in 1951 - swinging seven seconds after he left the condemned cell.

    No mistakes. Clean. Efficient.

    It can be done, with practice.

    It’s not the only possible method, but there’s no reason why a way can’t be found.

    Personally, though I think every effort should be made to be humane, I’m not too fussed by occasional accidents.

  • John Howard rebukes Barack Obama over climate speech

    01/01/2015 3:07:21 PM PST · 1 of 29
  • Swedes begging to fund Australia backpacking

    12/31/2014 4:48:13 PM PST · 4 of 23
    naturalman1975 to dennisw

    Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti.

    As for the beggars, I see a lot more bogan type Aussies begging in Melbourne than I do foreigners. And I am sick of being asked if I have a cigarette to share - people seem particularly shameless about that.

    I’d actually have more sympathy for a young traveller who tried it - at least they had enough motivation to get off their backside and travel - and don’t have access to our welfare system which makes the local beggars even more inexcusable.

  • Top 10 Misconceptions About the Catholic Church

    12/30/2014 8:12:43 PM PST · 118 of 156
    naturalman1975 to redleghunter

    Not at my school - but we’re a secondary school not a university, and we’re also in Australia, not America. The Jesuits here, from my observation, seem to be a significantly more conservative grouping than those at the Jesuit universities in America. I think a lot of it comes down to where they are sent to work - the more ‘radical’ ones here in Australia seem to find themselves assigned to social work type ministry, and the more conservative ones are kept in the schools. In Australia, the best Jesuit schools have, for over a century, been a large part of helping Catholics to join the upper classes - our current Prime Minister and a number of members of his Cabinet, and the Leader of the Federal Opposition are ex-Jesuit schoolboys - and that mission is seen as very important. If the schools went left they’d become a lot less popular with parents who are willing to pay the high fees involved - and they’d send their sons to protestant schools instead.