The outpouring of saccharine dross about the upcoming Royal Marriage has thrown into sharp relief the spectacularly low expectations we have of Royals.

So wholesome. Blech! Pic: AP Photo/Markosia Enterprises

William and Kate are being feted as the saviours of the monarchy largely because they are not foolish, badly behaved muppets and are not an embarrassment to the institution and the country.

Indeed they seem like reasonably likeable, down-to-earth people considering their situation - keeping in mind that I am making a totally uninformed judgment here.

What should be of more interest (or much, much less, depending on here you stand) is that many of their peers seem to think it fair that the English people bankroll their activities, which range from the venal to the inexcusable.

It’s hard to top the antics of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson when it comes to, at best, a complete lack of judgment.

As the UK trade envoy (under which position his expenses were paid reportedly to the tune of 129,000 pounds in 2007 when figures were last available) Andrew apparently seems to think hanging out with a convicted sex offender is appropriate behaviour for a royal.

Billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein was sentenced to 18 months in prison for soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008, but Andrew was reportedly meeting with him as recently as last December.

Epstein also helped Fergie by paying off $25,000 of her debt to help her avoid bankruptcy - an association she admitted later was “a gigantic error in judgment”.

This was the woman who was caught the previous year trying to sell access to Andrew - chalk up one more “gigantic error in judgment”, love.

Andrew’s role has since been downgraded in a bid to lower his profile.

I’m not going to bash you over the head all day with examples of Royal stupidity, but it’s safe to say I could have a good crack.

Whether it’s Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi, his dad Charles avowing a desire to be a feminine hygiene device or Prince Philip - that’s the Queen’s bloke if you’re having trouble with the hazy honorifics - asking an Australian aborigine in 2002, “Do you still throw spears at each other?”, there’s plenty of material.

But then there are the wonderful Royals.

Remember Princess DI? I can hear you all sighing wistfully as you picture her, overly made up, standing in an operating theatre watching someone with a thousand times her aptitude and worth do something actually useful.

Princess Di is feted, nay, exalted, for her tireless work for land mine victims, HIV and AIDS charities and other charitable causes.

This is somehow seen - not just in her case - as a justification for the royal house these days.

They flit around the globe, drawing with them the illuminating beacon of the international media which burns brightly over a cause for a few minutes before moving on, hopefully leaving it better off for their efforts.

This is all well and good, but they, and she, should not be thought of as saints for this work.

Indeed, if they didn’t do such work, they would rightfully be criticised for being selfish, greedy wastrels suckling at the public teat, which they continue to do, charity work or no.

Drawing attention to good works and cutting ribbons has effectively become the “job” of the Royals, and to celebrate them as selfless philanthropists simply for showing up is letting them off pretty lightly.

I wish William and Kate all the best. Being a Royal would, let’s face it, be a shit of a job. And if they manage to find some comfort and sanity with each other as the most analysed and intruded upon couple in the world, more power to them.

But don’t expect me to care, and don’t expect more than a slow hand clap if they manage to occasionally lend their fame to a cause in need.

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • TChong says:

      07:26am | 21/04/11

      NO offence ian f , ,but are you seriosly quoting from ‘The Mail” ?
      A news site on a par with ‘News Of The World”?
      But, to be fair, I followed the link, so..,
      What did you think of one of “The Mails"other important front page story- Will Cameron wear tails to the wedding,. ?

    • Warren says:

      07:51am | 21/04/11

      The Daily Mail??? You might as well quote The National Enquirer, it will probably be more accurate.

    • Erick says:

      08:08am | 21/04/11

      The Daily Mail is actually one of Britain’s better and more thoughtful newspapers, unlike the dreadful Guardian and Independent. It only cops flak because it doesn’t kowtow to a left-wing agenda.

      As for the National Enquirer, it is more reputable than the New York Times. The Enquirer broke the story of presidential candidate John Edwards’ affair, while the Times suppressed it because he was a Democrat.

    • Barry says:

      08:16am | 21/04/11

      Guys, it’s all over the news.  It should be noted though that the Muslim group did ask police permission.

    • Warren says:

      09:05am | 21/04/11

      Ahh Erick, I should have known you would be a fan of the paper known as “Fascism with oven gloves on”. Incidentally the headline of the first edition was: “The British Union of Fascists: Our Patriotic Angels!”.


    • Erick says:

      09:23am | 21/04/11

      @Warren - Thanks for illustrating my point, that people who slag off the Daily Mail are motivated by left-wing politics.

      Incidentally, the first edition of the Daily Mail was printed in 1896, many years before the founding of Fascism, so your claim is false. That’s what you get for believing the trash you read in the Guardian.

    • Warren says:

      09:50am | 21/04/11

      Erick you are right. But you might want to dwell on these little beauties:

      “The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany (1933).” Lord Rothermere, publisher.

      “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” - 1934

      “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ finding” - 1993

      and many many more ...

    • Erick says:

      11:01am | 21/04/11

      So, Warren, if embarrassing articles from over seventy years ago can taint a publication forever, I assume you’ll equally condemn Time Magazine for running Hitler on its cover as Man of The Year in 1939.

      And the New York Times for glorifying Stalin and hiding his genocides in the 1930s. And any number of other publications that have written things that look bad in hindsight - which I suspect is all of them.

    • Warren says:

      01:34pm | 21/04/11

      That would be true Erick except a perusal of the Daily Mail on any day of the week reads like a catalogue of parochial hatred and lies:

      DM senior news reporter:
      “They phoned me one early morning and told me to drive about three hundred miles to cover a murder. It was a woman and her two children who’d been killed. I got an hour and a half into the journey, and the news desk called me on my mobile and said, “Come back.” I said, “Why’s that?” They said, “They’re black.””

      The DM inventing Muslim scare stories such as:
      “A hard-working cafe owner has been ordered to tear down an extractor fan - because the smell of her frying bacon ‘offends’ Muslims.”

      And this little gem denied by the Royal College of Midwives.:
      “Maternity units turn away British mums as immigrants’ baby boom costs NHS £350m”

      Another lie:
      “UK migrant total is ‘three times the world average’”

    • Erick says:

      02:48pm | 21/04/11

      Considering the inaccuracy of your earlier claim regarding the Daily Mail’s first edition, I’d take those claims with a pinch of salt. Even if true, that would be no worse than the average lefty paper like the Guardian or the New York Times. They all push the news to fit an agenda.

      The only difference is that you don’t like the Daily Mail’s agenda.

    • Harverious Crumpetuous says:

      03:26pm | 21/04/11

      Its the daily mail but its rather accurate if you go and view the muslims against crusaders website. It has a pretty sinister message to the Royals and outlines the reasons why, all in a Utube video in English.

      Then you have the 5000 police many of whom are armed and are going to have them. Then they also have to contend with the UK Defence League who are also protesting but Im not sure why.

      Will the Muslims leave British Land if the British leave Muslim lands? No because some doctrine of Omar states that once Muslims capture land it is theirs to the death.

      Harvey Crumpet

    • acotrel says:

      08:07am | 22/04/11

      @Warren & Erick A definition of fascism is ‘capitalism without parliamentary democracy’ - let’s argue from there?  If we get into talking about who loved Hitler, and who Hitler loved, it simply gets embarassing! The fact is that the Germans prior to and during WW2 were dedicated anglophiles.  Their fashions and ideas mainly came from the British.  That includes eugenics, racial purification, concentration camps and all that good stuff!

    • Sean Williams says:

      06:30am | 21/04/11

      I am British. Like many millions of my compatriots I am no fan of the royals. But it does get my back up when foreigners, usually Australians, come up with these snide comments. Yes the concept of royalty is ridiculous. No-one knows this more than the British themselves. Of course many will get into the spirit of the wedding but in reality, in my experience, the majority of Britons are either opposed to or apathetic about the monarchy. Until you no longer have one from the other side of the world as your head of state, or have a wedding in your country that attracts as much global interest and fascination (come on Oz where is the next Scott and Charlene coming from?)  I would suggest you keep your potshots to yourselves.

    • KH says:

      07:42am | 21/04/11

      Hey mate - they are our head of state too, and if we want to take the piss, we will take the bloody piss.  If we want to criticise, we will.  If we want to point out that heredity monarchy is as stupid as hereditary doctor, or hereditary airline steward, then we will.  If you don’t like it, go back to Britain.

    • Erick says:

      08:04am | 21/04/11

      Sean, we Aussies can say whatever we like about OUR royal family. If you don’t like OUR monarchy, feel free to leave.

    • Ash says:

      08:06am | 21/04/11

      Relax Sean I believe the author was making snide comments about members of our (and your) monarchy not the British people. Don’t get your knickers in a twist.

    • BJ says:

      09:01am | 21/04/11

      Surely not JUST Australians making snide comments Sean? And not all Australians dislike the Royals or make snide comments about them. Not a good idea to generalise on this site mate. You’ll be flamed & you’ll deserve it. Be more specific with your opinions . There’s a good chap

    • Captain Obvious says:

      01:50pm | 21/04/11

      I like chocolate cake

    • acotrel says:

      06:43am | 21/04/11

      The only reason I have more than a passing interest in the royals these days, is that Diana’s kids seem to have some nous.  It still irks me when the media play their publicity generating game with these .........s!

    • TChong says:

      07:11am | 21/04/11

      “But “, the David Flints, Abbotts , Bishops ( Lessor and Minor) , apprentice Sen. Sophie and and all the other prostrating, forelock tugging, grovelling serfs, so desparate for fairy stories will shout, -“but “they are good for tourism.”
      And thats the sum total of what “royals"of any type are, whether they be poms, thai, japanese, tongan, danes, ,swedes , dutch , or anyone else.
      They are novelties,like viewing the Piltdown man,or dinosaurs, curiosities, an amusing window back to a past that by its definition is undemocratic.
      A past where legitamacy was claimed because a “god “appointed them.
      LOL funny.

    • acotrel says:

      08:16am | 22/04/11

      @Chongy Have you ever stood outside Buck Palace and watched the changing of the guard?  It’s really inspiring - might be bullshit - but inspiring!  I can see value in Liz because she provides leadership - restrained, but she’s up there showing the flag!  The Crown puts dills like Abbott in their place - always playing second fiddle!  I think it would be difficult to establish the same respect that she has,  for an Australian President!

    • thatmosis says:

      07:16am | 21/04/11

      Whats up Sean, upset your sensibilities did we. These bludgers on the public purse are a waste of oxygen and good reportiong space in the papers. This fascination with this marriage is probably fuelled by the betting on how long it will last, I give it 5 years if he’s anything like his mother..

    • Kirs says:

      07:54am | 21/04/11

      I was too distracted by the fact that the author looks like Ricky Martin to focus on what was actually written.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      07:57am | 21/04/11

      What royal wedding?

    • Andrew says:

      09:24am | 21/04/11

      I was like that, until I heard the chasers were making fun of it live or whatever they’re doing, so now I want to watch that.

    • nossy says:

      08:28am | 21/04/11

      Magic stuff Cameron and I see the Tele is getting into the grove with a new game called “Build Your On Royal Baby” linked below. Poor Katey will be building babies for the next 5 or so years as all Princesses are required to do. She a lovely gel but a bit skinny dont you think - I like a more fuller figure. That Tasmanian lass who jumped aboard the Danish Royal Gravy Train is also a skinny gel and has just about finished her baby producing duties - meanwhile hubby is running around shagging anything in a skirt ! Good catch there Mary !

    • Henry V says:

      09:38am | 21/04/11

      Royals are the price we pay for the benefits that having the Crown provides as the font of power of our political and legal.

      On balance and on that basis I would say they’re worth it.

    • Seano says:

      01:17pm | 21/04/11

      What benefits do they provide Australia besides filling column inches in WhoWomansOkIdea?

    • Henry V says:

      04:04pm | 21/04/11

      While I admit my syntax is a bit garbled there, I didn’t say they provided the benefits.  The benefits come from having the Crown as the power source of our legal/political system.

      Having to put up with the Royals is the price we pay for those benefits.

      is that a bit clearer?

    • Seano says:

      04:38pm | 21/04/11

      Of course we should always be grateful for our heritage but the crown is now basically a figure head. A figure head not elected by us, not representative of us, who doesn’t live here and who spends bugger all time promoting us or our interests on the international stage.

      Time for a new figure head.

    • Henry V says:

      05:02pm | 21/04/11

      Seano - the Crown is not a figure head - it’s a legal concept.

      The figure head wears the Crown.

      I used to be a minimalist republican - i.e. simply amend the constitution to replace the GG with a President (so selection remaisn the same) but I can’t see the good it would do and the safeguards the Crown provides are too valuable to give up just for some superficial notions of how we might appear to other nations.

      And I believe having a directly elected President would be a disaster - It would politicise the position. We have enough politics and politicians already.

      When you look around the world it’s very hard to find many Republics that area good advertisement for the idea. Peoples’ Republic of China anyone?

    • Seano says:

      07:01pm | 21/04/11

      Henry, I understand that the crown is a legal concept. My argument is that the legal concept could quite easily rest with a president.

      The good I see is that it will be a major step towards building national pride, our head of state should be Australian chosen by Australians. It will build respect here and abroad. Not only will our head of state actually represent and be one of us but their job will be to work for us promoting our interests here and aboard.

      Comparing a communist regime to our democratic state is silly .Other than the use of the word Republic there is nothing in common.

      PS. My personally preferred model would be a President elected by two thirds majority of both houses of parliament but seeing as Howard scared everyone off that sensible idea I’m happy to take a president we elect. I can’t see the point of either political party politicising the role as it will be a ceremonial one, there’s nothing to gain except looking petty and stupid.

    • Muz says:

      10:08am | 21/04/11

      Why aren’t we a republic yet?

    • Johnny Cash is a friend of mine. says:

      10:46am | 21/04/11

      Because all you idiots currently over the age of 30 voted against it when we had the referendum.

      Don’t cry foul when you get what you vote for.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:13am | 21/04/11

      No Johnny. Your namesake screwed up the process by not allowing the people to vote on the model, or allow any voting on which models would be up for the referendum, they wanted and instead dictated the least desirable model as the only option which was ultimately rejected as he knew it would be.

      Lets not let facts get in the way shall we?

    • TracyH says:

      11:15am | 21/04/11

      No Johnny Cash etc…we didn’t vote against a republic, we voted against the model of President. The referendum was worded so that to vote republic would mean a state enforced, not voted for, president. I voted against because of that sole reason. A true referendum would simply be two choices…republic, or monarchy…with everything else to follow on from that point over a period of time.

    • Billy B says:

      12:46pm | 21/04/11

      Muz - For Christ’s sake Muz have you had a memory lapse or something?  We all had a go at voting for a Republic and it failed ya silly bugger.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:01pm | 21/04/11

      “No Johnny. Your namesake screwed up the process by not allowing the people to vote on the model…”

      Waitaminute, how’s Johnny Cash responsible for the Australian referendum? Don’t go attacking the honoured dead. raspberry

    • darragh scully says:

      03:51pm | 21/04/11

      I kind of heard the story that there was alot of Gerrymandering with Pastoralists (who have small numbers but are loyal to the Monarchy) affecting the vote. The voting system gives to much emphasis to people in regions with lots of land and very few people.

      And I also heard that in a follow up study there was lots of clear evidence based on the responses of a representative population that the Model that is prefered is a President elected by the people.

      Only Ive heard that Australia will become like other members of the Commonwealth whom are republics.

      But as far as the rule of law goes we are a Virtual Republic with our own selected Governor General approving our laws not the Queen and that the Australia Act 1988 broke the last legal ties to the UK and the Crown. That makes us a Virtual Republic. So why bother changing anything. In fact it will only alienate or provoke the Dominant WASP Demographic into trying to Starve the rest of us and leave us languising on unemployment or in jail as a matter of Principle.

      Good movies to Watch this Easter Break

      Micheal Collins,
      The Patriot,
      Black Hawk Down
      The Thin Red Line
      Hill 69
      Dead Presidents
      The Town

    • Shenanigans says:

      10:58am | 21/04/11

      wait…you mean to tell me that the royals….are….actually…relevant and people care about them? This, This has blown my mind, i need to go sit and think.

    • Muz says:

      11:16am | 21/04/11

      I didn’t vote against it. Should have happened years ago along with a new flag. I don’t see how an average Australian can be proud of a flag that has a union Jack along with a constellation that can be seen pretty much everywhere in the southern hemisphere on it.

    • TracyH says:

      11:17am | 21/04/11

      hehe…just noticed the author’s surname…England ...chuckle smile
      Like the bloke the other day who got sacked from a meat processing center…surname VEAL…love it!!

    • Audra Blue says:

      01:55pm | 21/04/11

      That is called nominative determinsim.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      04:15pm | 21/04/11

      And I foolishly forgot the regular sign off on Cameron’s column - ‘Thinking of England’!

    • Ash says:

      11:30am | 21/04/11

      Well this sucks. If we have to have a monarchy (And it seems like we’re stuck with them for now at least) then the least I expect of them is that they be interesting - you’re gonna be on every tabloid headline anyway, so at least be there for a reason like being totally pissed in public or saying something blatantly wrong. These two don’t seem the least bit entertaining.

      I guess the best we can hope for is Harry getting William totally drunk during his stag party and some photos coming out of that.

    • AT says:

      11:53am | 21/04/11

      Like Erick, the royals have become a parody of a parody, a predictable and stodgy entertainment for the simple minded. Elementary folk deliberately delude themselves that they’re witnessing weighty affairs playing out on their Harvey Norman LCDs. They simply ignore inconvenient facts, the same way they ignored the fact that their deified Di was a delinquent mother shacked up with a Muslim billionaire playboy flitting around the globe on an idle quest of decadent pleasure-seeking at the time of her death.

      These two pampered privileged purposeless upper-class-twits will similarly dishonour the franchise sooner or later and the same half-witted supplicating devotees we see today will still be rationalising the monarchy’s debauchery with farcical claims that these imbecilic foreigners are somehow essential to the preservation of our democracy.

      Blob out for hours watching the wedding if you must, but at least try to understand it’s no more momentous or meaningful than an episode of Dancing With the Stars.

    • TracyH says:

      12:03pm | 21/04/11

      GUFFAW AT smile

    • malohi says:

      01:49pm | 21/04/11

      If there were thumbs up buttons on this sight i would use several computers to convery my e-greement with this comment.
      Alliteration FTW.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:07pm | 21/04/11

      But but…but…she got photographed with a plastic visor on while speaking about Landmines and stuff…surely thats more than enough?

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      11:56am | 21/04/11

      Great article!

      Remind me again, why aren’t we a Republic yet?

    • Billy B says:

      12:43pm | 21/04/11

      Mensur Cehic - Because we didn’t want one.  If it ain’t broke why try to fix it.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      01:52pm | 21/04/11

      @Billy B,

      you should try and rely on stats more often than not.

      The only ones who are against a Republic have their ‘claim’ to a lot of land and assets here….and those types of people happen to be in the U.K.

      We DO want a Republic - Now.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      02:01pm | 21/04/11

      This is not 1999, and even then the main issue was what questions were actually being asked at the referendum.

      Anywho, I blame it all on Queenslanders. smile 62.56%

      Trecherous! At least we, Victorians, were 50-50.. ..just imagine if it were a simple Yes/No question.

    • bikinis on top says:

      12:12pm | 21/04/11

      It’s time for a republic ,new flag and new anthem.
      make illegal immigrants the ruling class of Australia.

    • Billy B says:

      12:41pm | 21/04/11

      bikinis on top - Bollocks to your stupid ideas.

    • Seano says:

      01:11pm | 21/04/11

      Some good ideas….

      Republic - If Howard had put the question “Should Ausrtalia become a republic? Yes/No” we would be one now. A republic is about national pride, internation respect, recognising who we are now and were we are situated geographically.

      New Flag - Our flag should be easily recognisable as Australian not easily confused with dozens of other tin pot countries. It should represent Australians not a period of in our history.

      New Anthem - Most people only know one verse. At schools etc they sing two, the other three or so embarrassing/inappropriate that they’ve been dropped. As a song it’s cringe worthy, I mean how is “girt by sea” an inspiring thing to belt out? The only time it sounds any good at all is when sung to the tune of Gilligan’s Isle.

      “make illegal immigrants the ruling class of Australia” - Now you’re being silly.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      01:48pm | 21/04/11

      @bikinis on top

      Are you referring to convicts? In which case, isn’t that already on-going?

    • bikinis on top says:

      12:14pm | 21/04/11

      the royals see everything, see everything,and say nothing.
      they have no idea where Australia is.
      Is n’t Australia the place where Sound of Music was made?

    • fairsfair says:

      01:32pm | 21/04/11

      I will never understand why tradition and culture is so revered in non-anglo groups, yet we (white/english/anglo) shitcan everything that is white/english/anglo?

      Yes it costs money, yet it is rediculous, but like it or not, it is our culture and our history. Embrace it if you want to, ignore it if you want to but realise that you have just as much right to publicly decry the English Royal Family as you do the Burmese. I wonder if I wrote an article ripping the crap out of Burma, would you all sit here and agree with me, even build on it. Very PC, very acceptable.

    • Billy B says:

      05:57pm | 21/04/11

      fairsfair - There hasn’t been an English Royal Family since 1707 - Act of Union.  You mean British Royal Family.

    • Glen says:

      01:35pm | 21/04/11

      Ah now the republican left is coming out of the woodworks. I am no monarchist, I am all for the republic provided people actually elect the president. Stupidly, as I recall, you lot last time denied us this right. Hence why you got a solid “no”. I wonder if you have actually learned something? I am betting not.

    • acotrel says:

      08:30am | 22/04/11

      I don’t like the idea of electing a President.  I favour a direct promotion model.  The office of Commonwealth Ombudsman should become a pre-presidential position.  It would then become politicised, and open to scrutiny.  We’d know who is to be the next batsman, and be able to influence it.  If the incumbent is incompetent as ombudsman, he’d get the flick before he could do any damage as President.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:59pm | 21/04/11

      I do like the royals because I like the living history they represent, but that frame from the comic is horribly bad.

      It tops Obama’s star turn in Spiderman for cringeworthiness, seriously.

    • BiG TeD says:

      02:40pm | 21/04/11

      I suppose the Royal Family are frighteningly normal compared to the Catholic Church.

      And as for hanging around with child molesters, you could easily level that at the beloved ALP in NSW (Milton O) and Queensland (Keiths W and D’A).  Yes - a heck of a recent history of peds in the ALP.

      But back to the republican supporters and two questions:
      1.  Which republic? In 500 words or less.
      2.  Do without any fomr of the BBC for 6 months and watch only ABC programmes - you’ll be bored shiteless.

      Maybe do an article on the culture in which that flourishes?

    • Arturo Pintel says:

      03:51pm | 21/04/11

      BiG TeD
      You’re quite rigth: I’m not sure I could do without the BBC.

      I mean who needs Dick Smith or Pauline Hanson as our head of state if it means doing without Professor Brain Cox or Stephen Fry - too cruel a thought.

    • Adrian says:

      10:49am | 22/04/11

      Wow Doris, and going the smear on the ALP on Good Friday too.

      You’re all class. Very Christian of you.

    • Seano says:

      04:28pm | 21/04/11

      Jez, I was largely prepared to ignore the royal wedding but when they delay the telecast of the NRL by an hour to accomodate this shit they’re taking the piss.

      How dare these two inbred dole bludgers get themselves hitched right in the middle of friday night footy!

    • Billy B says:

      06:07pm | 21/04/11

      Mensur Cehic - The countries of the world that tend to be the most liberal, secular and tolerant happen to be constitutional monarchies - the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Spain.  Spain got rid of the Monarchy and then went back to the Monarchy again.  Speaks volumes.  It keeps out of the top jobs rather unlovely characters.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      10:15am | 22/04/11

      Fu*k the ‘royals’.

      Long live the Republic!

    • bikinis on top says:

      07:54pm | 21/04/11

      why couldn’t Kate the Great and Wills marry like everyone else? They should just marry with just two witnesses at a local court or a registry office? They could have the wedding reception at home in the backyard and honeymoon at work.

    • stephen says:

      10:36pm | 21/04/11

      It’s odd what a word does. Like Fascists. Then we think of armies, (which discounts these short-haired chaps right off) who invade Poland and are not so much responsive, but mass killers.
      I hate white supremacists all the time, but in describing our hate for such a being, we shouldn’t think that those who resist the Muslim fanatic is necessarily to be described as one who is also against a moderate man.
      Don’t call them such a word yet.
      We know they resist, but we don’t yet know what they really want.

    • Anjuli says:

      11:34am | 22/04/11

      Go to You Tube look for the send up of the royal wedding and have a good laugh ,it is better than the real thing.

    • Billy B says:

      08:54am | 23/04/11

      Mensur Cehic - “Fu*k the ‘royals’.  Long live the Republic! “

      Your character comes out in your statement.  It’s what I’d expect from a Republican.  What have they ever done to you?  There are many people who are willing to defend our Constitution against characters like you.  Oh, I forgot two more countries with Monarchies - Sweden and Norway.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      08:15pm | 25/04/11

      Whatever, Rambo.. smile

      At least I have character..and you can keep having yourself defined by ‘royalty’ and their merchandise.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter