British woman beheaded in Tenerife. Royals fault.

[worm]

whooooooooosh

[eFestivals]

So we're agreed that a person can tell you. Cool.

Good to see that contrary to any fact you still don't hesitate to make something up out of nothing.

[worm]

Good to see that contrary to any fact you still don't hesitate to make something up out of nothing.

[Peter Dow]

I am no less of a republican than you, but much of what you say around the issue is the stuff of madness

The royals might be responsible for a lot of things, but they are no longer in direct control of this country or its govt,

Edited May 21, 2011 by Peter Dow

[philipsteak]

Now I'm obviously not as well read as you on these matters Peter, but I'm fairly sure that people get killed in republics too.

[Peter Dow]

Now I'm obviously not as well read as you on these matters Peter, but I'm fairly sure that people get killed in republics too.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Peter Dow

[feral chile]

One of the state's jobs is to protect people, for example, to stop them being murdered on the street.

A good president can stop the state terrorising protestors and so protestors are free to win their campaigns to make the streets safer.

If the kingdom's officers are jailing or sectioning protestors then the monarch is responsible, I would say.

The monarch is personally responsible for not resigning and for not going into exile with their family to make way for a republic which would allow the election of a president as head of state.

Let us return to the example of this British woman who got beheaded in Tenerife.

I understand very well that people think a king or queen who does nothing but smile and wave is OK, not a problem, that the government or judges don't need to be sacked or dismissed by an active head of state.

People are free to believe monarchs are OK of course but so long as we have do-nothing monarchs we will find things like beheadings of innocent people will happen because the government and judges are bad and do need to be sacked and only an active head of state, a good president of a republic can be expected to sack bad governments and bad judges.

Edited May 21, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

In other parts of the Queen's realm they are doing better and the people may be safer from murder, but it is no thanks to the Queen, it is due to the fact that they have managed to get a half-decent local government despite the Queen.

[Peter Dow]

There's a Spanish president in there somewhere!

Support the Spanish demos. Las Palabras De Amor!

BBC: Spanish polls to open amid mass protests

Click for large image

The protest in Madrid's Puerta del Sol square has remained peaceful

Spain is poised to begin voting in regional elections as thousands of young protesters remain camped out in squares across the country.

Demonstrators are angry at the government's economic policies and Spain's high youth unemployment rate.

Their numbers have swelled despite a ban on political protests ahead of elections.

The governing Socialists are expected to suffer major losses in voting for city councils and regional governments.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's government is struggling to overcome recession and create jobs.

In the capital Madrid, about 30,000 people have occupied the central Puerta del Sol square.

Similar protests, popularly known as M-15, have sprung up in many other cities including Barcelona, Valencia, Seville and Bilbao.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

I believe you to be a much less politically experienced republican than I am because although you clearly appreciate that Queen Elizabeth doesn't actually do the job of head of state, doesn't exercise control, she just occupies the position of head of state and stops a president being head of state, you have not demonstrated any understanding that a good president does do a good job as head of state, does exercise control, which makes a huge difference compared to a ceremonial figurehead monarch as head of state.

We have a prime minister who exercises control of govt. In essence that does the exact same job as any president who has executive control of govt.

We have a ceremonial head of state, who just so happens to be the monarch. While I'd rather someone was elected to that role, at the end of the day it makes zero difference to what the govt does as that monarch exercises no power.

There are republics who have the ceremonial head of state (eg: Germany, Ireland, Israel) and there are republics who have an executive head of state (eg: France, USA). Whichever they have they are still republics.

In either type of republic, there is one person - and just one - who exercises executive control of govt. We have one person who exercises executive control for govt, and if we become a republic that's unlikely to change.

Back to your original point: does the Queen have any responsibility for that random murder in Tenerife? Nope.

You come across as a madman by saying she does, and because of that you give extra strength to the monarchists and undermine the case for the monarchy's abolishion.

[Peter Dow]

We have a prime minister who exercises control of govt. In essence that does the exact same job as any president who has executive control of govt.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

The UK's Prime minister is David Cameron. Cameron's control is bad control, poor control, dangerous control, lethal control, out-of-control control, oppressive control, anti-freedom-of-expression control, anti-the-right-to-protest control.

As was the control of previous UK Prime Ministers also bad control in each case.

As is the Scottish First Minister's control bad control.

As is the control of the Queen's judges bad control.

The way the UK selects its heads of government guarantees bad control.

How the UK selects its head of govt is by the will of the people. It will only ever be as good as the people involved in the selection process.

And that doesn't change if it's one person doing the selection or everyone. It doesn't change if the head of govt is a prime minister or president. Or even a monarch.

What makes 100% difference is the constitutional mechanisms in place to select the head of government, the prime minister.

Bullshit.

The appointment of the head of government, prime and first ministers, judges etc. is determined by the constitution of the United Kingdom.

What experienced republicans understand, but you don't seem to understand, that under a republican constitution we would not have David Cameron as UK Prime Minister. We would not have Cameron's bad control. Neithe would we have the bad control of Salmond or the Queen's bad judges.

Different people, republicans, with a proper political education, intelligence, ability would exercise much better control.

Bullshit. No one is an infallible super-being.

The people would change. We would not have royalist twits running the government.

True. Instead we would have republican twits running the govt.

The decisions those republican twits would make would be little different to the decisions that royalist twits make - after all, who is head of state and who has elected them makes zero difference to 99.999999999% of the decisions they'd make.

It's not like (for example) a decision over student university fees is changed by whether someone is a royalist or a republican, it's changed by whether someone thinks education should be free for those students or not.

The government did not as is not warning people sufficiently about the dangers of Tenerife. That is the fault of the head of government who is Cameron who was only appointed by the UK, would not have been appointed by a republic.

I see that the idea of voting for a leader has passed you by.

If we want to change the constition to a republic, to have a revolution, republicans need to blame the constitution and blaming the consitutional monarchy and the monarchs who occupy the position of head of state is part of the criticism of the kingdom which needs to be made.

you're welcome to think that, but the fact you appear to be stupid and/or mad to most people has a far greater azffect on those 'most people' than what you believe.

If we allow "God save the Queen" as the final word, the constitution will not be changed and we will continue to get the bad control of twits like David Cameron.

So do please tell us how we always get a no-twit republican as leader instead.

[Peter Dow]

How the UK selects its head of govt is by the will of the people.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

oh, so the Queen's responsible for all the bad stuff but none of the good?

Can't you see how irrational you're being?

Edited May 25, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

Ban twits from office.

or alternatively, ban twits from going around pretending to be republicans.

Whatever the media might say and the public might swallow, you can't get away from the fact that the public DO swallow it, and they're no less entitled to swallow it than you are to swallow the morons book of republicanism as you have.

The people will only be educated if they wish to be educated. That's something you should apply to yourself as much as you need to apply it to others.

[Kyelo]

Perhaps an analogy might help.

Imagine if the Queen was occupying a local fire station, preventing fire-fighters from doing their work.

The Queen would then be responsible for all the local fires which were not being put out, the property fire-damage and the deaths in those fires.

You could not say - "well done Queen for those buildings which are not burning down".

No, certain buildings will be run well, no loose flammable materials near sources of ignition, have fire alarms and smoke detectors and vigilant residents, staff etc. That is why they don't burn down. It would be no thanks to the Queen who was occupying the fire station and stopping the fire fighters doing their work.

Now, OK, the Queen is not occupying a fire station, but she is occupying the position of head of state and is stopping an elected president from doing a good job.

Where local government happens to be quite good and they don't need urgent help from a national president then that is no thanks to the Queen.

On the other hand, where local government is bad, the local people need to call in a president, but can't because the Queen is occupying the position.

[Uncle Liam]

Peter Dow is single and looking for a woman

"I'd like to find a lady to love and to start a family with" writes Peter ...

A wee serenade for the ladies -

Well I have had lady friends now and then in my life but I've yet to find a woman to be my partner in life and have my children.

Is there a woman for me somewhere in this wide world? I am hoping that the internet will help me to find that special someone for me and that's why I am writing this page.

What do I have to offer a woman?

As a father to our children, they would expect to inherit some of my superior genes. I am fit, healthy, strong, very clever and well educated. I have demonstrated some of my abilities as a man in this website which I have produced myself. Most men would have to pay someone to produce a website as good as this. I can do many things myself which means that I don't need as much money as others do to be comfortable. So my children could be likely to achieve more than the children of most men.

However I cannot offer a woman riches. I live off welfare and have done for years - it is a reliable, though low, income which increases to a couple's allowance if I can find a partner who is "habitually resident in the UK" - lived for years in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. I believe it may be possible to get benefits for citizens of any European Union country right away as well.

I am pro-Scottish of course but actually most of my previous lady friends have come from outside Scotland originally.

Of course, welfare here does pay extra for children and so I can afford to bring up kids no problem. A woman with no kids of her own yet but keen to start a family would be ideal.

Peter Dow says “Hello” to anyone who is listening.

Transcript - “Hello. I’m Peter Dow and I’m recording this message from my home in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Anyway, thanks very much for checking me out on the web. Perhaps you’ve seen my Scottish National Standard Bearer website? Perhaps you’ve been looking at my Rice for President Yahoo Group? Perhaps you’ve seen some of my videos on YouTube or you’ve read something I’ve said on political forums? Perhaps you’ve heard that I’m single and looking for a lady friend? (… and I don’t think Condi’s interested, unfortunately).

Em, so anyway, I’d love to get some feedback - send me an email or reply on forums. Here’s my email address. peterdow@talk21.com

If you are really keen you can send me a text message on my mobile.

TEXT MOBILE

Tel. 07796 790745.

Do that first before you try to telephone me because I don’t usually accept incoming telephone calls if it’s an anonymous number, if I don’t know who is calling me. So let me know who you are first of all by emailing me or sending me a text - then I can enter your number into my mobile directory so I know who it is when you call.

So anyway, I certainly look forward to hearing from you if you’d like to get in touch. I’d appreciate that very much. OK Nice talking to you. Bye.”

<br clear=all" style="page-break-before: always; ">I would though consider taking on a woman who would be bringing her children from a previous relationship with her to stay with us - so long as my woman is ready to conceive right away and is prepared to deliver my children to create our new family.

My woman's daughters would be particularly welcome but I won't allow a woman's teenage or older sons to move in with me given my current circumstances of limited living space as I don't want to have to deal with testosterone-fuelled conflicts with a young man especially with us both bottled up in a small flat.

If I have sons of my own, I would to expect to be living in a bigger house by the time they are teenagers and so I believe that we would get along well like any father and son.

I could provide a home that is warm, dry and secure and where mother and children can be safe and well-fed. I live in a single-person's flat right now but my family would move to bigger accommodation as and when needed. Foreign holidays and having a car are not so easy to afford on welfare though.

What kind of woman am I looking for?

I am looking for a woman who would like me, love me and who would stick with me through good times and bad. A local woman, a Scot or a Briton would be great and there are other possibilities too.

I would consider taking on a woman from abroad but a woman from outside the European Union would really be better off if she had work or money of her own as it would be difficult (but not impossible) for the two of us to live off my single person's allowance.

I like women of all ethnic types and have previously had brief relationships with an ethnic Asian woman, an ethnic black woman, as well as several with ethnic white women. Race or colour is no barrier to love with me.

I am not adverse to introducing a bit of polygamy (polygyny) into my life, so if, say, sisters, women friends or bisexual women partners wanted to share me and for us all to live together as one happy family, then I'd be all for that. One woman at a time is enough to keep me happy but I'd also be happy to live with and take on more than one woman at a time, so long as I didn't have to share the women under my roof with any other man.

<br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always; ">Definitely no swinging or sleeping around in future - that does not appeal to me and it has dangers that I wouldn't want to risk. I wish to maintain my good sexual health and I'd expect my partner to do the same.

Ages: Well I am 49 (in 2010) and my main requirement is that my lady be of child-bearing age (aged 16 to 36 is fine), and younger women have time to bear more children. The more children a woman could bear for me, the happier I'll be.

Education: Obviously, I am a highly educated person and so an educated mature woman or a young woman with the potential to learn would be ideal. A woman reading this and able to send me emails can assume that the chances are that she is smart enough for my requirements.

Politics and religion: Well I have strong political principles and I am not religious although I would respect the beliefs of my woman partner and I would be happy to agree to disagree where necessary. For example, I could live with a woman who "likes the Queen" so long as she can live with me when I "want the Queen dead"! As long as we can tolerate each other's views, that is the main thing. I am not sure that I could cope for very long with a woman who was a racist or an anti-gay bigot though - I do want my woman to care and not to be indifferent or cruel to the innocent though.

Marriage: Potentially yes, I would be prepared to get married legally if that's what my partner wanted and when finances allowed. I should say though that I don't have much respect for state institutions and laws interfering in people's personal lives.

Non-smoker: I don't smoke and I don't want my partner to smoke either, particularly in the house. A glass of an alcoholic drink now and then is OK but I don't drink heavily and I don't want a woman with a drink problem or a drugs habit.

Sizes: I am 6 feet tall (1.83m) and you can see my build in this photograph from 2004. I have dated women in heights from 5 feet and a few inches to 6 feet 4 inches, so I am not too particular about height. I do though want a woman who is at least fit enough to run for a bus, ride a bicycle or stretch to catch a ball from time to time. A brisk 30 minute walk to the supermarket with me once a week should not be a problem. So no anorexics or very fat women please.

Talking of fat. Unfortunately, I've put on weight since June 2005 and my waist size as of 2010 is a disappointing 41 inches (104 cm)! I must find some will power to diet and begin to slim down a few more inches.

Waist-to-hips ratio

This table describes my preferred maximum waists and the corresponding minimum hips dimensions in a woman. If a woman's hips are at least 1.25 times as big as her waist when we first meet then fine.

As an example, consider the measurements of a woman who had a waist of around 29 inches (74cm) and hips of around 39 inches (99cm). That would be great because 39 divided by 29 equals 1.34 which is easily bigger than 1.25.

These are my preferred dimensions for a non-pregnant lady when we first meet. Clearly, I will be delighted to see my woman's waist line expand every time she gets pregnant with my next child. My measurements have grown with time so I will understand if her measurements change with time as well.

WaistHipsmaximumminimuminchescminchescm24613076266632.58228713589307637.595328140101348642.5108369145114389647.51204010150127Breast sizes I am not so fussy about - small, medium or large - I like them all.

Delivering my babies is everything. The waist-line of a mother of my children is no big deal.

<br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always; ">Trying for children: I'd like to try for my first baby right away. So I'd advise my woman to be as sure as she can be that I'm right for her before she moves in. When my lady moves in, I'll be expecting to have sex with her with no contraception. At my age, I have no time to waste before getting my family started.

Where: Unless there is a better plan, I'd expect a woman to move in with me here in Aberdeen in the first instance. Since the main aim is to have a family, I'd expect the main reason to move home will be when more room is needed for the kids.

Money: Do not ask me for money up front supposedly to "help you to travel to Aberdeen or move in with me". I won't send money to anyone on that basis as I'll suspect right away that I am being targeted by a scam artist.

How to get started: A woman who wants to see if we are right for each other should contact me in the first instance. A text-message, an email and a phone-call should get the ball rolling, so to speak. It might work out so why don't you contact me now and we'll soon find out? It could be the start of our happy life together!

Mobile: 07796 790 745.

Email:

No gay men, no transsexuals, no female impersonators. Genuine women only should apply!

Most popular page on my website!

This page gets more hits than any other on my politics website. So most people seem to have no interest in my politics but a fascination for matters of my love-life and sex-life it seems. Why so when my love life is so dull and uneventful?

Many people only read this page and come away knowing nothing about my politics or perhaps even remain totally unaware that this is a politics website and this page is only part of the Author - Peter Dow section - the equivalent of the back page of a book.

Those people are reading this one page and coming to a view about my whole website based on only this page - judging a book by its cover.

Hey, most people! This page is not aimed at you! I am not trying to "chat up" most people! Half of you are men anyway! So quit being interested in this and disinterested in my politics pages! Get your priorities straight! You have got your nose straight in here yet you will turn your nose up at reading my politics pages which would actually do you some good if you could be bothered reading them!

The rest of this political website is written for and aimed at most people. So please, people, read those other pages, not so much this page only. Come to a view about me based on my ideas for government - not on whether you think my single and looking page is any good or not!

I make that plea but no doubt all those superficial people have stopped reading by now. Are they the same people who turn immediately to look at the page 3 girl of the newspaper but never bother to read any news? Too much like hard work eh? Lazy good-for-nothing, sleaze-bags!

Anyway, this page got so many hits (6000 plus) one month (August 2010) that the bandwidth of serving the video file - my "hello" video - and the music file - "I want to know what love is" - nearly exceeded my server account's monthly bandwidth allocation, taking my whole site off line for a while, and so I am having to edit this page to use YouTube to serve those big files. Some people!

[Uncle Liam]

Remarkable for a number of reasons.

Fending them off, no doubt.

[Purple Monkey]

[Gre]

Remarkable for a number of reasons.

Fending them off, no doubt.