MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
New Queen's portrait to mark her 88th birthday
A portrait of the Queen by British photographer David Bailey has been released in honour of her 88th birthday on Monday. The black and white photo, which shows the Queen smiling, was taken in March. She is pictured wearing pearls, and a dress by Angela Kelly, who has served as personal assistant and senior dresser to her since 2002. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules88 years old. An amazing age to still be working.
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Though she has been the oldest reigning monarch in British history, she won't surpass Victoria's reign until September next year.
Long may she reign!
God save the Queen.
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0“88 years old. An amazing age to still be working. ”
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0working?
Paulcedron- Yes she does - and a pretty full day,s work as well - she has handed long distance overseas travel over to the younger generation though, and a fair number of “presidencies” of hard working Charities etc.
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0her husband who is over 90 still does a lot of work also.
Her work as constitutional head of the Govt, includes reading through a large amount of daily Govt papers - querying some and requesting further information or suggesting changes and then signing off those that need it.
As well as a surprising lot of meetings and discussions with a lot of people including her Govt Ministers.
She does one hell of a lot more for her Country and People than your Head of State does for hers me thinks.
And not just UK papers, don't forget that she's the Head of State of fifteen other countries as well. I'd imagine that she gets important paperwork from all of them.
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@3. Working as head of state and of the commonwealth. Comprende?
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0islander
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“She does one hell of a lot more for her Country and People than your Head of State does for hers me thinks.”
well, except robbing, our “head” of state doesn't do anything for her country.
4
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looking at it like that ..it's pretty good value for 62p per annum....
(Cost to UK taxpayer per annum)....
Paulecdron- we are actually in agreement then I think!
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Her Majesty is the epitome of the term “to serve your country” and long may she reign.
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My wife was looking at BsAs Herald this morning and pointed out that this photograph was posted in the paper. And quite right to!
How old is her son who will replace her one day?
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She has a reputation as being solid in both mind and body. I'm only being curious here, I want to ask:
Doesn't her holding of that leadership to such a late age disadvantage the next in line experientially?
Do her subjects ever discuss that question and what are their conclusions about that?
This is the real thing,
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0not like the cheap plastic quotes and comments of plastic KY CFK supporters,
lol
11 bushpilot
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Doesn't her holding of that leadership to such a late age disadvantage the next in line experientially?”
Not really, we are expecting Her Majesty to keep going for as long as she can and ( we hope ) she will keep going for a long time yet....
To many of us ( certainly the people I talk to ) Prince Charles ( Next in line to the Throne ) will not take it, even though he is well liked and respected, the scandal of his divorce from his first wife ( Diana, Princess of Wales ) and the revelations of his unfaithfulness means that he is, in the eyes of the public, “damaged goods”.
What we are expecting him to do is to let it pass to his oldest son William, who is himself, very popular with the public, at home and abroad and let him take over from The Queen.
The position may not be offered to Charles as the UK government may prefer William to ensure stability. However if that is the case then I expect Charles to say he graciously declined the role; thus ensuring his and William's popularity.
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 014
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The position is not offered....it's entirely up to Charles, it doesn't matter what the Govt think.
He has been hinting that he wants it....
Maybe it's his ugly wife behind it......
As succession to the British throne is governed both by common law and statute, anything is possible.
Apr 22nd, 2014 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An Act of Parliament can change the line of succession.
So it seems it does matter what the government thinks.
It will be Charles choice...the last time Parliament interfered was in the 17th Century....
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0....there are succession rules, yet you somehow believe that these rules will be ignored and he MAY be passed over....
...don't make me laugh...yer an Aussie alright with a Googles knowledge of Britain....
...the moon MAY also be made of cheese....I think...
@16
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0OK but what about the other Parliaments all over the commonwealth. What if some decide that it should go to Charles and the UK Government said it should go to William? They have the same rights to decide then do they not?
As succession to the British throne is governed both by common law and statute, anything is possible.
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0To which Still Boring A_Voice replied:
“the moon MAY also be made of cheese”
The moon IS not made of cheese. However what I said is correct.
“.there are succession rules, yet you somehow believe that these rules will be ignored”
I didn't say anything would be ignored.
Those are your choice of words.
I just stated that there is no guarantee that Charles will be king.
17 A_V
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...the last time Parliament interfered was in the 17th Century....”
and the relationship between Parliament, the State, and the Monarchy, has progressed and changed somewhat, over four centuries.
17th century?
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would say 1936.
You say a lot of stuff Skip...most of it wrong....
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0...the Monarchy brought about that additional piece of legislation not Parliament...
There is no provision in British law for the sovereign to alter his status as sovereign, except through the due process of law. And no law exists in Britain that grants to the sovereign the right to choose, on his own authority, voluntarily to alter the scope or to discontinue the term of his or her reign.
His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 was the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that RECOGNISED and RATIFIED the abdication of King Edward VIII and passed succession to his brother Prince Albert, Duke of York.
This did not alter the succession rules...it went to his brother...
The King abdicated and Parliament responded....
18
...apparently Canada agreed to UK succession rules...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
what would they do with Buckingham Palace if she did not exist!!??? where would all those tourist go without her majesty in residence?? She is a tourist atttraction worth many poundssssssssssss!! LOL but
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0HAPPY BITHDAY.
If she did not exist ? then we would most probably have a president, and the palace would be our white house and the tourist would still come to see it,
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0happy birthday..
*24 LOL
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol.
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've always thought that they (Royals) should spend more time living (not visiting) in the other commonwealth country's. Or at least have members of the family perform the duty as Governor. Their popularity is waning and they don't seem to be doing their duty for them as they do for the UK.
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@24 Not sure about a Pressy. But Buck House looks nice for any head of state eh?
*27 well the Duke and Duchess are doing a great job at the moment in Australia!!!
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly. They need to stay there. make at least semi permanent. Perhaps meet the real King of England while they're there. Can't remember where he is at the moment.
Apr 23rd, 2014 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excerpt from Prince William's speech today:
Apr 24th, 2014 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Australia has a quality of life and a level of excellence that makes it a magnet: an enormously attractive place to live, trade, invest, and indeed just visit. The arts and sciences flourish; Australian sporting success is legendary; agriculture - from the traditional to the technologically most advanced - is hugely successful. This is a country that is in the front rank internationally.
”We have both seen all this for ourselves. Australia may be known as 'the Lucky Country', but often the harder you work, the luckier you get. Australians make their own luck. The distinct Aussie formula that has fashioned such a dynamic society is the source of admiration and envy around the world.“
Not bad for a country, as many on here continually remind me, that started as a a British penal colony.
And to poor Vestige who has predicted more than once that Australia will be a republic or at least vote on it within the next 10 years:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-republic-cause-is-receding-20140423-zqy29.html
”A Nielsen poll earlier this month shows support for an Australian republic has slumped to its lowest level in 35 years.
Fifty-one per cent of Australians surveyed believe a switch to a republic is unnecessary, and only 42 per cent are in favour. That is down from a high of 58 per cent in 1999.
The Nielsen poll reveals there is now more support for the proposition that “Australia should never become a republic” than the proposition “Australia should become a republic only after Queen Elizabeth II’s reign ends”.
Even more worrying, just 28 per cent of respondents aged between 18 and 24 back the idea of an Australian head of state, while 60 per cent oppose the idea.
Far from being the agents of progress our youth have unwittingly become a generation of constitutional monarchists.”
Why should Australia become a republic, just because some hate the royal family,
Apr 24th, 2014 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are these people saying, that all countries with lords , dictators , and presidents , are better,
its each to its own, if Australia want to keep the queen that's up to them,
and nothing to do with British hating argies.
just a loyal thought.
No one has ever given an actual benefit to Australia becoming a republic. It usually revolves around an Australian-born becoming our head of state. Considering that would be an opportunity open only to about 20 people per century it is hardly making it some sudden meritocratic utopia.
Apr 25th, 2014 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0And it will only become a position for someone in the network of elite and power already. I much prefer someone that owes nothing to anyone and sits above the fray as our final line of defence in our democracy.
The idea that every single position in a democracy has to be elected is facile and has clearly been shown as false by our own history.
“ I much prefer someone that owes nothing to anyone and sits above the fray as our final line of defence in our democracy. ”
Apr 25th, 2014 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree, but on the other hand I don't. No doubt it has worked. Worked better than most in fact. But there has to be a more logical solution in the future.
No there doesn't. What is more logical than a system that has worked?
Apr 26th, 2014 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And not just worked for a short period of time like many republics, but worked for centuries.
Change for the sake if change isn't rational. Australia's political and constitutional system works. I won't speak for others, though the UK, Canada and NZ can probably be included in this claim.
Republicans try to convince people that a republic would be some egalitarian meritocracy and that our current system is some out of touch aristocratic throwback. But there are few countries that are as politically stable and peaceful as ours. That is not to say that we still wouldn't be as a republic, but that shouldn't be a reason to change.
Indeed I've never actually been given a god reason to change.
If the UK became a republic , a president would cost the country more than the monarchy .
Apr 26th, 2014 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why ?
1 ) The Queen is independently wealthy so doesn't need to be salaried and cannot be bribed
2 ) Elections every 5 years cost money
3 ) Buckingham Palace is her private property , a similar presidential palace would cost a fortune to buy and staff.
4 ) Re decorating said palace every 5 years would cost a fortune ( Lord Irvine's wall paper at £8,000 a roll ? )
5 ) Like all politicians , a president would soon be caught up in a corruption scandal .
Our monarchy is so far fairly untainted , unlike the Dutch or Spanish
6 ) Presidents love the trappings of wealth and power , Cristina and Mugabe are good examples .The Queen is happy to travel by train , whereas presidents love private aircraft , large security details , the whole works , look at Tony Blair FFS , he so wanted to be a president.
I could go on ...
If its not broken, then why change it,..
Apr 26th, 2014 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we will stick with what we know, rather than a future nightmare,
mmmm..God save the Queen.
@34
Apr 26th, 2014 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I mean is it is not logical to have an unelected person as head of state and then by virtue of birth have their descendants carry on as head of state.
They do not necessarily have the right skills or aptitude for that job.
But I agree, that last few hundred years have been very stable and they have provide this. But this has more to do with them personally than the system itself.
@ 37 Mendocinovino
Apr 26th, 2014 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not you again, stupid boy?
Do you really think that any child destined to be the Sovereign is left to fend for themselves in the hope they will “come good”? They are mentored by the most intelligent and experienced people available in the world from a very young age.
There is a problem with having a royalty, they are subject to being idiotic at times and completely out of their normal character and it’s epitomized by “I want to be your tampon, darling Horse Face” Charlie, but hopefully this cad will be passed over in favour of William. I really, really, hope that that is the case.
But how many elected heads of state are not many, many times worse. Just a brief look at SA:
MADuro; kills his people like they were his enemies;
“No Money Pepe” an illiterate and innumerate murderer;
TMBOA FFS what can I possibly say about her that has not already been covered?;
The Cow Pat (Morales); making sure that by altering the constitution he is going to be president until somebody shoots him – the way all dictators end up;
The Banana of Ecuador (Correa); so badly fucked up in his head by the US “killing his father” while he was in jail for being a major drug dealer:
Lula da Silva nee Dilma (the biggest crook in the country) with a terrorist puppet who’s cell killed a USA Military Officer in front of his wife and children;
NOT FORGETTING THE DYNAMIC DUO: the Castro Brothers.
And YOU question the Royalty of the UK?
Ha, ha, ha.
@Chrissy, Don't get your knickers in a twist girlfriend!
Apr 27th, 2014 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0No I don't think they are left to fend for themselves in the hope that they will come good. I'm sure they have the best of everything. Hopefully any inbreeding won't become a problem and we can all sleep well knowing our future is in their capable hands for eternity. Makes perfect sense.
Thanks for your contradictory second paragraph. You agree with me!!!
The third paragraph is not related to anything I said. suggest you direct that to someone else.
I do question the so called Royalty of the UK. Well done on observation.
Well thankfully it is Australians that decide our system.
Apr 27th, 2014 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are very few republican systems that I admire. And few work as well as ours.
@ 39 Mendocinovino
Apr 27th, 2014 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You cannot count, can you?
The first sentence is also the first paragraph.
Try again and read ALL of it correctly this time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9t_KDGqOmE
You stupid boy.
@40
Apr 27th, 2014 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before our converstaion was highjacked but that idiot.
How do you see the future? Carrying on more or less unchanged or....something else?
I just don't see how they can carry on an on myself. It isn't logical as I said before. I agree the republican system does not work any better that's for sure, but surely we can come up with a fairer/better system?
@41
Fantastic chrissy. Your headline is actually a 1st paragraph. Well i never.
Anyway thanks for hijacking an adult discussion.
@ 42 Mendocinovino
Apr 27th, 2014 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the line above is the first paragraph?
Really? Is that what they teach you in what passes for a school in The Dark Country?
No wonder you are a bit slow.
I said before. I agree the republican system does not work any better that's for sure, but surely we can come up with a fairer/better system?
Apr 27th, 2014 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, to be fair, when you do come up with something better, let us know,
until then we British for the most part would like to remain with what we have, thanks..
Mendocinovino
Apr 28th, 2014 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0For Australia at least, I see us carrying on the same. Whilst not the oldest constitution, ours is one of the oldest and has had very few changes made to it in the past 113 years.
I don't understand what isn't logical about a constitutional monarchy. There is nothing inherently more democratic about electing a head of state. In Australia we don't elect judges or sherifs. We don't even technically elect our Prime Minister, just his party. Indeed, the Prime Minister isn't even mentioned in our constitution. His position and role is just convention.
Who guards the guardian?
Our system places someone at the apex that doesn't crave wealth, influence or more power. Someone who is trained to the job from a young age. Someone who is not beholden to anyone. And someone who thinks longterm and not just the next election cycle. If you think about it, our system is probably guilty of human rights abuses for imprisoning a person in this role for their whole life. It is as if they are born into slavery (a gilded cage is still a cage) to serve us.
So no, I can't think of a system that would be better. Having someone at the very top that has been there for over 60 years makes me feel more secure than someone who will only be there for 6 years and then I have to pay to support for the rest of their life with bodyguards, free transport and a pension anyway. Let alone the cost to elect. The last US presidential election cost US$2 billion. Now I know that includes everything but jeez even 10% of that is expensive or even 1% of that is expensive.
If anything we in Australia get a bargain priced head of state because we don't pay any upkeep and only pay money for visits... the same as if the US president were to visit.
So I don't think the system will change anytime soon and actually looking at the world, every year we realise how superior our system actually is.
Mendocinovino
Apr 28th, 2014 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Our Canadian government is similar to Australia's, with more checks and balances than a Republic.
As recently as 2008, our Governor General, who represents the Queen, had to step in and prorogued Parliament to forestall a Constitional
crisis that would have seen 3 unelected Opposition parties pass a Non-confidence motion and force out the existing government.
The “Crown” was able to create a period of stability and ensure a passable Budget from the Conservatives.
Order was restored.
Some of the the SA posters may be confused by our system. Our “Head of State” is the Queen, but she does not create policies, pass laws, or administer the government. The Prime Minister and his party 's Cabinet Ministers do that.
The Queen certainly does NOT 'Rule by Decree', as some believe she does.
Princess Cristina is another matter.
@45 & 46
Apr 28th, 2014 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand what you're saying. The logical part of my argument is simply having a person raised from birth to rule just because they were born to that family. why them?......luck hundreds of years ago basically.
I can see your both loyal to that system and you don't want to say otherwise but hypothetically then, IF for whatever reason you had to start again (post apocalytic world for example) What what you do? find someone to become king or queen and start the system back up?
More and more of their “power” has been given away over recent years and many people (especially in overseas places like yours) don't have as much affiliation as they would do in the UK. Obviously there are calls from time to time to be a Republic. Eventually she (or he) will give up further power in a bid to appease them (like so many Royal Houses have already done). They would cease to be of any real value other than tourist attractions. So the checks and balances they they provide now will also cease.
What I am getting at is this. I don't see a Monarchy is logical to have nowadays and the Republican system obviously was an attempt at making a fairer/better system but has failed miserably. So, does anyone have a “Blueprint” if you will for a form of Government that is neither of these?
good answers though.
@44 Briton
No I don't. That's what the question is there for.
@43 Chrissy
The line above as you put it is my tag, who the message below is for. Below some kind of stupid heading then your 1st paragraph.
Dumb dumb dumb.......LOL
BTW who gives a F###?
Go try bulling some schoolkids or whatever you like to do and leave the adults alone will you?
Our Parliamentary system has evolved since The Magna Carta, to what it is today, and works well in co-operation with the Monarchy.
Apr 28th, 2014 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A “post apocalyptic” government will need to evolve as well.
I don't think democracy or free choice will be an option.
It will take a strong man to unite (!!!) and rule a people.
The strongest Warlord will be supreme and he will want to maintain order, stability, and continuity by passing his position along to a follower of his choosing, or to make things more predictable, encouraging stability, and safe financial speculation and investment, create a Law of Succession passing his throne to his son.
He might call himself the “King”.
You see where this is going...
I do. It's just that we have struggled to limit the power they achieved to stop tyranny. They have served a purpose but we have suffered as well.
Apr 28th, 2014 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm just interested to see if the so call “free thinkers” on here have a better idea. There surly must be.
49 Mendocinovino
Apr 29th, 2014 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I do. It's just that we have struggled to limit the power they achieved to stop tyranny.”
Who is “we”?
we the people.
Apr 29th, 2014 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 049 Mendocinovino
Apr 29th, 2014 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I'm just interested to see if the so call “free thinkers” on here have a better idea. There surly must be.”
I'm not sure what you want us to say.
You've asked the same question about 3 times, in different ways.
Our system, with Monarchy intact, has evolved as times changed, over hundreds of years.
It works, better than Republics, as you concede, or failed ideologies, Communism, and National Socialism ( or is that Fascism?).
Our Constitutional Monarchy will continue to evolve, reflecting the needs of the People, ensuring too, a stability to the ideals of our society.
What's wrong with that?
What are your ideas? Surely, you have some.
What would you ideally replace our system with, if not a Republic?
You sound like you are hinting at something.
I was interested to see what ideas people here have on a new form of government. If you could design one from the ground. Either I'm not making myself understood or there simply is no one here with an view on such things.
Apr 29th, 2014 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but I could be hinting ;)
Do you vote on values and bet on beliefs?
53 MendocinoVino
Apr 29th, 2014 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suspect you would get a better response if you did not refer to other posters as “so called free thinkers”.
It sounds like you have already pre-judged them and their responses as inadequate.
If you are just asking leading questions to get a desired response, I think you will be disappointed.
Why would you have another democratic society ( MendocinoVino = California USA ?) replace their evolved system that works, with something else?
Do you believe that the current British Royal Family are tyrants?
I take your point. But I actually had only 2 or 3 posters In mind for that;)
Apr 30th, 2014 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it works don't fix it. I understand. I was trying to get a debate going on hypotheticals. Any new form of government is only likely to happen in some peripheral country where their system has failed but they are prepared to try something else.
They used to be wouldn't you agree? What they have done now is realise after hundreds of years that if they shut up and keep out of the matters of the plebs they can have a guaranteed income for them and their offspring, a lifestyle that 99.99% of the planet could only dream of. All for the knock down price of being seen to give up most of your powers...not bad. Who wouldn't do it in their position? Safeguarding your legacy is what we're all about. Does it make sense for anyone to treat them as a deity just because they have been born of that family...I don't think so.
your not the first to mention the California..Why?
Under the feudal system the people had almost no rights at all. That was abandoned centuries ago.
Apr 30th, 2014 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mendocino is a place in California USA, and “Mendocinovino” is a Twitter user based quite naturally in California who seemed to follow the wine industry and tastings.
But individual power with the monarch still remained intact. At their whim they could giveth and taketh away. Only until fairly recently have they not exercised those powers. Not because they disagreed with them but because they had seen the bigger picture.
Apr 30th, 2014 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah ok. I understand. Not the same, sorry.
Mendocinovino
Apr 30th, 2014 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are many Mendocinos, we even have one in Toronto Canada, on Duffferin Street.
There is another one in Mendoza. That's in Argentina.
Titti boi tobi !!! What a fine new persona you choose this time around. The wine is still yet to make world class in world competitions. Maybe someday.
Apr 30th, 2014 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still up to your childish antics. Honestly.....at least to yourself be honest. You do not feel like a child ( be then you are but a teenager).
Poppy !!
Apr 30th, 2014 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, that's him !!!
Do you remember kids birthday parties? Playing Hide & Seek, there was always one stupid kid who kept hiding behind the curtains, even though his feet were showing at the bottom.
:-D
???
Apr 30th, 2014 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tobi you play stupid much better then playing the intellectual.
May 01st, 2014 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you replying to me?
May 01st, 2014 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, you are “ Toby” - same as “Arifu”, “Nostrils”, “ Truth Telling Troll” aka “ TTT”
May 01st, 2014 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mmm.. you were doing well for a while. I thought you may be different on here but sadly it appears you too are part of the “closed shop”.
May 01st, 2014 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just one of the “so-called free thinkers” you called us.
May 01st, 2014 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems you are “closed” too
Tobi I am in Argentina next month and thought I would trot up to Mendoza......any suggestions?
May 01st, 2014 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Toby,
May 01st, 2014 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which HAVANNA do you work in ?
Surely there are lots of them still open in Mendocino.
Don't make Capt Poppy traipse around to each and every one, looking for a frustrated barista.
Wow. Don't I feel important? I have my own stalkers....
May 01st, 2014 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a sorry sad pair you two are.
But you are on the right track in one aspect.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!