John Howard use of ASY1 callsign

[welcome_stranger]

Just found out that lil johnny airplane is using the callsing ASY1 (Ausy one). Dont mind the ASY part as that is the correct ICAO designator for a RAAF aircraft on an international flight, but number ONE???? If we use the American precedent then the suffix one to a callsign is for a) the head of state, and/or b) the commander in chief, which George doubleu is, but lil johnny isnt.:mad:


Last time I checked it is the Governer General who is Australia's Head of State and Commander in Chief not the Prime Minister, so if anyone has the right to use the callsign ASY1 it is the Governer General not lil johnny.

<rant mode on> BTW I readily admit I have no respect for this man as being ex-military and now in the aviation industry I have first hand knowledge how this person has shamelessly used the military for his own political gain and his deputy is now refusing to bite the bullet and actually take charge and do something about NAS. <rant mode off>

Thank you for your patience, it has been good to get this off my chest.


:ok:

[ferris]

Little Johnny has shown his colours on this matter before. Remember the stink over who was to open the olympics?

He's a republican when it suits him ie. when he wants to show that he's in charge of the country.

Yet a monarchist. Hypocrite.

[itchybum]

Who says the "One" callsign is limited to CinC or HoS? (Ho's... hehe... ;) ) Just because the yanks do it that way?

Who says the GG is Australia's CinC? I didn't even know we HAD a designated CinC.

Folks, what you see here is the tall poppy syndrome at work. The PM rides around in the front seat of his LTD or whatever it is for precisely that reason. Or else you'd have the crowds saying, "Look at Little Johnny, sitting in the back seat like he's in a taxi, who does he think he is, the PM??? The poor driver being humiliated like that..."

Well it IS a taxi and he IS the PM. Who else should be up for "Aussie 1" status then, Dame Edna? Or some sporting hero maybe. Ray Martin.... :rolleyes:

If that's the major weight on your chest I seriously think you need to see someone.

Is this the most churlish thread ever? :confused:

[farqueue]

>Who says the GG is Australia's CinC? I didn't even know we HAD a >designated CinC.

There is this quaint document called a CONSTITUTION. Perhaps a quick read before the facists in CBR burn it.

[HotDog]

Right on, itchybum:ok: However, I think Aussie One should be reserved for Pauline Hanson.:E

[max AB]

farqueue, tell me where in the constitution it refers to a CinC? I'm with scratchy butt, get a grip

[itchybum]

...Ployse exployne??? :ok:

I know it's been around for 100+ years but the whole GG/CinC thing is news to me.

You see, having checked my handy copy of the constitution I found farqueue is sort of correct - the actual wording states that "command in chief is vested in the Governor General", therefore his designation is still "Governor General" ). Still.... points to Far Q for knowing his poop.

I fell asleep :zzz: long before I could find anything about who's entitled to Aussie One status or any other forms of fame, celebrity, honour or infamy. I'm pretty sure it doesn't say.

Oh by the way, I stumbled across another tidbit of information:

In the preamble of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, point #6 says that "The States" shall mean the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, (etc, etc)." Interesting... :eek:

And now I'm off to the pub to get ****-faced like a good pilot.

[ferris]

What do you mean "sort of correct"?

Ask Gough Whitlam if the GG is in charge.:hmm:

If you think this thread is churlish, what do you call someone who professes to be a monarchist, but wants to be 'the man in charge' when it suits him? That's the rub. He wants his cake and to eat it. Typical politician. Rules for them, and rules for the rest of us.:*

[max AB]

Roll on the republic...!

[itchybum]

He wants his cake and to eat it. Typical politician. Rules for them, and rules for the rest of us. Hey brother, that's politics...

I'm sure everyone knows the GG isn't in charge. Ditching Gough wasn't his decision, just his responsibility.

As for "sort of correct", I'm just being a stickler over semantics. Disregard.

Now to the pub.... :yuk:

[ferris]

I'm sure everyone knows the GG isn't in charge. Ditching Gough wasn't his decision, just his responsibility. As the stickler over semantics that you are, you will realise the stupidity of that statement. If he isn't in charge, how could it be his responsibility? The part about the power 'vesting' in the GG, refers to the Queens power.

Wish I could join you, so we could continue discussing ways to plot the demise of the monarchy over a beverage. Alas, my liquor license has just expired:oh:

[Buster Hyman]

What happened to Drongo 1 ?

[bombshell]

Okay perhaps the GG is the head man in Australia, however to the rest of the world the PM is Australia's leader and how would it look if he turned up in ASY2 ???

[High Altitude]

Who cares what the callsign is? The public don't hear it...

Then again ya gotta love the military exercise callsigns up here at times... VB, Jim Beam.....

[Chuck Magutzup]

The callsign is assigned by Ronnie RAAF. I would suggest that Little Johhny wasn't even aware of it. And I would further suggest that if the GG has the right to it then he should be making all of the decisions and doing the hard yards instead of reviewing parades and having tea parties.

Ferris, and WS. Your suggestion that the GG is REALLY in charge is just plain stupid. The PM (whoever that may be) is the guy in charge. The position of GG is ceremonial, despite what Gough will tell you. The callsign SHOULD be with the PM.

Now grow up and find something interesting to debate. Like Jetstar.

[itchybum]

Governor General: Figurehead.

Ferris: Dunderhead.

If you don't understand the strucutre of the gov't, it's your own fault for not paying attention in Year 9 Social Studies. I'm not explaining the roles and responsibilities to you.

sounds like you're already pissed.

[ferris]

You guys make me laugh. Your apathy only contibutes to monarchist's cause.

Who signs the bills the parliament passes?
Who do you swear alliegence to when joining the Australian armed forces?
I could go on, but I'm even getting bored with it.

If it's not important to you, so be it. But it's a sure sign you are losing the argument when you start playing the man.




The position of GG is ceremonial, despite what Gough will tell you So the PM, elected by the people of oz, wasn't dismissed by the GG? That might come as news to a few......
I'm not explaining the roles and responsibilities to you. That's fine, as clearly you don't understand them.

[Flight Detent]

Hi all,

As I remember this situation in the RAAF, when we flew overseas, which was quite often in the P3 Squadrons, we always used:

"ASY....." which was always the diplomatic clearance number appliciable to that flight.

Cheers:E

[Pharcarnell]

Ferris mate.

***So the PM, elected by the people of oz***

You really do have to look more closely.
As much as many of the great unwashed (us) don't like it, WE do NOT elect the PM. We elect a bunch of sycophantic wannabes who then decide who THEY want to rule (yes, rule not govern) us.

Roll on the republic where WE actually DO elect the top job.

[Sperm Bank]

Tks flight.

The short memory brigade is raring its head again. As I understand things at the moment, 1. the oz economy is one of the strongest in the world. 2. Unemployment is very low and getting lower. 3. the budget consistently operates in surplus. 4. Interest rates are as low as they have ever been for a very long time. Who is responsible for these attrocities? yep Howard and Costello.

The last time LABOR was in power i recall the following, 1. Record high unemployment, 2. record high interests rates , 3. Record foreign debt,4. Zero confidence (private or public sector).

Yeah sure the NAS shambles is a disgrace and Anderson should be derided over it, but look at the big picture girls. You may hate Howard and everything Liberal but you are a lot better off than if the fiscal incompetents in Labor were running the country. Find ONE economist to disagree!

As far as Howard using the callsign, BIG BLOODY DEAL. What a childish load of bollocks.

[Buster Hyman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I was only a yung-un at the time, but after the "dismissal", wasn't there a general election where the electorate voted for the Coalition? Or was there another "conspiracy" that I missed?:8

[Maxpowerhome]

F#@K little johnny, his starting to P#ss me off.

All i have to say is,,,,the rich get richer,,,the poor get poorer.

[Sperm Bank]

Great contribution Max. You could look at it another way mate. Under labor we all went broke. Even the financially illiterate can work that out.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

farqueue, tell me where in the constitution it refers to a CinC? I'm with scratchy butt, get a grip

Section 68 of the Constitution reads:

68. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative


So technically the Quuen is the CinC with GG using the power.


The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, point #6 says that "The States" shall mean the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, (etc, etc)." Interesting...

New Zealand were involve in the initial stages of the formation of Australia however they ended up not wanting a bar of it. WA on the other hand voted against joining the Commonwealth and was not going to. However Lord Chamberlain said if the colony of Western Australia didn't join the new federation he'd cut WA of just north of Perth and give the big chunk to Australia. WA said "ahh... Australia... sounds like a good plan then"

WA had a voted overwhelmingly to seceed in the 1933 referendum but got rolled again by the British and Australian parliaments . :(

oh.. and who cares about a callsign?! :ok:

Finally, the real strength of having a GG is not the power he has. It's the power he stops others (such as a president) having.

PAF
God save the Queen! :D

[Duff Man]

Sperm Bank
You must be
(a) male
(b) white
(c) from QLD (ok that bit is more obvious)
(d) Christian

The coalition govt have done a good job of riding on the coat tails of the most recent ALP govt... but I digress

John Howard, et al, are bring us closer to the US Republican style of far right extremist-Christian-controlled oppressive intolerant societies. This year's election is the only chance we have to avoid a much more important issue than the economy.

ps. ASY1 - yeah, I had a laugh too (did any ATC notice the juxtaposition in field 18 of the PM and Captain's names, and his mobile #? haha), but JH probably had nothing to do with it, more likely initiated from Washington or the Governator's place via the RAAF.

[itchybum]

Who signs the bills the parliament passes? Who do you swear alliegence (sic) to Do these ceremonial functons mean the GG is "in-charge"??? Incidentally, I believe members joining the ADF have the choice to swear allegiance to The Queen OR the GG.

Ferris you'll find the Reserve Powers of the GG here (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn25.htm) if you're really interested.

Note the words "in accordance with Ministerial advice " and "Governor-General... is regarded as above party politics and ... to remain impartial". The Reserve Powers centre on a need to maintain political order and national administration and satisfy a requirement for expeditious removal of doubt pertaining to government of the nation.

Do you still think the GG's "in charge" because if so I just cannot be bothered trying anymore.

Hope you get your booze permit sorted before you find yourself in a basement with a red billiard ball in ya mouth mate........ :yuk:

[Hugh Jarse]

Jeesus you lot are anally retentive:p

WHO CARES ABOUT A FRICKIN CALLSIGN ?!!!!!!:} :yuk:

[ferris]

Hugh, and others, if you are not interested- fine. Don't read the thread.

Itchybum.
Do these ceremonial functons mean the GG is "in-charge Yes.
Note the words "in accordance with Ministerial advice " So which Minister did John Kerr take advice from?
members joining the ADF have the choice to swear allegiance to The Queen OR the GG Great, either the Queen or her representitive. Neither of whom are 'in charge' according to you.
a need to maintain political order and national administration Surely the nation is mature enough to maintain it's own order and administration? I mean, if it's just ceremonial, what difference does it make, right?

For those who wonder why it grates on me about the callsign; because Little Johnny is an (alleged) monarchist. He should acknowledge this fact all the time , like when deciding who is to open the olympics etc. If he considers himself the nation's leader, then do so on paper and allow the nation to become a Republic. Isn't anyone else sick of pollies doing one thing whilst saying another?

[itchybum]

Mate................ (Sighhhhhhhh...........)

Ostensibly, NO minister. That line doesn't apply to the Reserve Powers. Did you read it???

If the queen came out and opened the olympics, do you think the majority of the electorate would've been happy? Howard may be a monarchist (he's entitled to an opinion) but that doesn't mean he's STUPID, unlike certain other people.

Use your brain, man... you REALLY think the GG is in charge? Well what can I say to you then. And people say voting is a RIGHT but there're so many knuckleheads out there with no idea of how to wield it and no idea how the gov't they're influencing actually functions.

Personally I don't care a hoot about the callsign or the monarchy but ferris's drunken ravings present a personal challenge I just can't ignore, however hard I try although he's wearing me down.

[ferris]

Ostensibly, NO minister. That line doesn't apply to the Reserve Powers So the GG is in charge, then?If the queen came out and opened the olympics, do you think the majority of the electorate would've been happy? Why not? If the majority of the electorate don't want the queen as head of state, why is she? Why would that reflect badly on Howard? Oh, that's right, HE'S A MONARCHIST.:zzz: Also, it might bring it to the people's attention exactly who is in charge. Correct?
Use your brain, man... you REALLY think the GG is in charge? At the moment, he lets the parliament write the bills he signs off on, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO.Personally I don't care a hoot about the callsign or the monarchy So why argue to keep it?

[itchybum]

you must be pissed.

how you survive so far from home will always be a mystery.

[Buster Hyman]

Small country syndrome must be hell in the sand pit. All those bullies picking on you because the majority of Australians still prefer a Monarchial state...hmmm...must be hell.
So why argue to keep it?
Why change it? Works ok, no civil wars, autonomy, knighthoods, terrific public holidays! Unless you're someone who has an inbuilt inferiority complex & believes that we won't be taken seriously by the rest of the world until we are a Republic? Who gives a rats what the rest of the world thinks...it's sweet down here!:ok:

[ferris]

because the majority of Australians still prefer a Monarchial state If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and politicians wouldn't need to hide and lie and twist the issue.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, that's fantastic news there ferris! Danny will be pleased that the majority of Australians read Pprune!:rolleyes: You wouldn't be happy unless we had a referendum every year, until a Republic was voted for, now would you?:hmm:

[ferris]

Well Buster (adopting similar smart-arse tone), I think you'll find there that the majority of the Australian public are in favour of a republic. If the referendum wasn't a loaded question:hmm: you would have your answer. Hopefully Latham will have a crack when he gets in.
I'd be happy if the monarchists just stopped lying and deceiving, ala Little Johnny.

[Buster Hyman]

:rolleyes: God bless those honest hard working Republicans, who wouldn't even think to stretch the truth for their own cause. Why, oh why are we so blind?:rolleyes:

Well ferris (adopting similar brainwashed rhetoric) did we ever get to vote on a perfect Republican model? Did Hawke (there's a man you can look up to!) ever put one forward? Did Keating (ditto) ever put one forward? What about the "great man" himself? If you're going to play politics on the issue, they'd have to be your role models, why didn't they put forward a perfect model for a Republic?

Please...educate me.:hmm:

[ferris]

I couldn't give a rats about the politics of it. There are monarchists and republicans on both sides. The monarchists ran a dishonest campaign, and it had the desired effect.

Why not make the matter simple? A simple yes/no on the question of do you want a republic? Then, once that gets up, another ballot on the half-dozen models proposed. Simple majority has it.

What monarchist, who has the courage of his convictions, would disagree? Let me guess......someone like Little Johnny who wants to pretend he's the head of state when it suits him?

[Animalclub]

ferris... it's not that simple. If I voted for a republic I'd also want to know what TYPE of republic. As you point out we didn't elect John Howard - the politicians did. Would that change if we had a republic?

[ferris]

Yeah, good point. I realise a lot of people would only vote yes if they knew what the end model would look like. Maybe tie the yes vote to a choice of 2 models ie. your yes vote will only count if the model you choose gets up? I think it would get up now even if there was only one option, say direct election. Every year it gets closer- as all the old monarchists drop off the perch. One day, one day........

[Buster Hyman]

Republic by attrition? I think you're missing the point ferris.

For the record, I am a Monarchist...at the moment. I will vote for a Republic when & if the model is right for me. Slurring the names of your opponents, because you didn't like the result only detracts from your argument.

Come up with a real model, a sensible system and absolute proof that every Australian will be better off under the system & you've won me. So far, I've yet to see anything remotely like this.

Good luck.:ok:

[Weapons_Hot]

Careful kids when you think republics - France is one; as is the USA!

If you vote, you WILL end up with a politician.:yuk:

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Ok so whatever arguments the Monarchists put forward the fact remains, Australia's Head of State is not an elected representative of the people of Australia. That Head of State does have the power to remove the elected Prime Minister from office. Regardless of who the rest of the world thinks is the leader of Australia (honestly they wouldn't know anyway), the official leader of the country is the Queen of England, as she is the one person who has final say on the appointment of the Governor General, the Head of the Australian State.

I really do think that the majority of Australians support being a republic and removing the attachment to England, but it will not get up in a referendum, in my lifetime anyway, purely because of the astronomical requirements for a referendum to get up. Whether its Sth Australia or Queensland, there will always be a state that won't have a majority in support.

[itchybum]

ANSA..... not in your lifetime? I reckon it will. They're already dusting off the songbooks down at ARM HQ for the next big push. IF they get the right question formulated with the right model it will happen.

I used to be , not so much pro-monarchy but anti-republic, not because I liked having the old bag in England in charge but for what you might call reasons of sentimentality. I suppose I've grown up now a bit but still feel the same way about the flag and other similar topics.

But I'd like to see the ties cut. The thing is if we become a republic I believe we should cut ALL the commonwealth ties. No half measures or special relationship for friends. No more Commonwealth games for Aust, no more knighthoods for fat, slimy pollies, OBEs, etc, no more "Royal" titles or post-nominals, etc etc...

[Buster Hyman]

Perhaps my last word on this, because punching the monitor hurts!:p

My favourite part of our current system is the fact that it has a 2 tier failsafe arrangement. Consider a Naval vessel. The Captain is God (No, not aircraft, Navy!), but he can be removed from command by a Doctor. (Can someone verify this, or have I watched too many movies?) So, the Doctor has some medical duties, perhaps an honourary level in the chain of command, and a failsafe power over the Captain.

The GG is, nowadays, mostly ceremonial (but perhaps we should use them in a greater capacity?) but this person has the power to remove a dodgy PM if need be. Disregard Whitlam in this instance and avoid the parochial party line for a moment. Take Zimbabwe, do they have the same system, with a GG able to remove Mugabwe? (I honestly don't know)

If our ultimate authority resides in the hands of one man, with no way to go around him, no "ombudsman" to watch over his actions, well, who knows.

This is one of my main concerns & the reason I withold my support for a Republic, until I am satisfied with the model.

:ok:

[turbinejunkie]

Buster,

I am with you on this one.

Nothing the republicans have put forward to convince me of any need to change our system of Government, that has nice checks and balances put in place to prevent an autocratic dictator the likes of Mugabwe (or worse) taking total control and doing what dictators do. Lots of BAD stuff.

To you republicans, O.K. I concede that the Royals 'seem' to be an anachronism of the past.

With Australia becoming more and more multi-cultural, there is less interest in the populace to hang onto the ties of the Mother Country and on that level, republicanism sounds good.

But, the reason a republic won't get up any time soon is that Australians are a sensible, conservative bunch, who appreciate the redundancy and safety that the current system provides. The system is a fair and just system. And it actually works - has done successfully for over a 100 years.

The only real blip along the way - Whitlam's sacking - was through skull-duggery with the Opposition leader working in cahoots with an unsatisfactory GG incumbent to prevent the government of the day doing its job.

If Whitlam had of been awake at the time anyway, he'd have ditched Kerr before he got ditched himself. He had that power, just neglected to use it.

Fortunately, the majority of Australians are not fooled by the utopian bliss that the republicans love to espouse: that if we changed the head of our state to a President and dropped the monarchy we could all stand tall and tell ourselves we are now all independent and grown up.

That's not good enough I'm afraid. We can be independent, patriotic Aussies, (and still serve it up to the Poms whenever we like) with no change to the status quo.

Put simply, "If it's not broke, don't fix it".

This argument of mine has nothing to do with cultural insecurity either!

I believe we can and should stand tall and mix it with the world's best. We are an intelligent country, blessed with great potential in all corners and in all walks of life.

Lets do that - continue to strive to be world's best! Stand tall Aussies. It is not your political system that makes you, it simply protects you and your freedoms.

But, before we go and do something stupid like provide an open door for the powers that be to destroy those very freedoms without a second thought in the naive view that "It couldn't happen to us", let us remind ourselves that anything in this world is possible.

History makes for an interesting read to those who are interested to learn from it.

I for one, am quite happy to leave things as they are until a Republican system is offered that guarantees the same level of safety our present one does but more than that, I think it should enhance what we have already.

Not merely echo what we have (or what has been offered so far which falls well short of the mark).

Only then would I consider voting for a republic.

And just one final thought on the republic. How many times does a republic have to be put up for in a referendum and then defeated before we say why bother any further on the matter?

TJ:ok:

p.s. Flackjacket is now on.

[Capt Claret]

IMHO the best reason for Australia becoming a Republic is so that an Australian, not an English person, can become our Head of State.

Also IMHO, the republic question, should be; "Do you support Australia becoming a republic", as, until this question is answered truthfully, skilled politicians, such as John Howard, will be able to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy by keeping the various republican factions fighting one another, rather than fighting the Monarchists.

To now join the factional republican debate, if IMHO we adopt a direct election model, we'll end up with some one like Smith's Dick for President (or whatever title is conferred) as only the likes of him will have the funds to campaign.

In my memory (back to '57) the most dignified and humane GG we've had was Sir William Dean. I think it highly unlikely that a person of his calibre would stand for and pay for the election circus, a la the US of A.

[itchybum]

Interesting how this thread has turned into a republican debate.

Capt Claret if you think "best reason for Australia becoming a Republic is so that an Australian, not an English person, can become our Head of State" then shouldn't the question be something like:

"Do you support a change to the constitution resulting in an Australian Head of State?" or words to that effect.

Might be only a fine line of difference there but it sounds like a more appropriate question, to me.

I think a lot of people don't know the other ramifications of becoming a republic, myself incuded.

[Animalclub]

itchybum... interesting. Never thought of it that way.

[compressor stall]

Could not agree more CC, especially the obfuscation of the referendum with that constitutional preamble...now what was that about again :confused: :confused:

Perfect politics - confuse the masses

[Capt Claret]

Itchy

Your suggested question would perhaps achieve the same result, that of an Australian Head of State. I'm sure though, that if that were the question, some one would say, "but how are you going to change the constitution? I won't vote for that until you tell me how."

Semantics really.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

What needs to be made clear for the Rebublic Referendum to have any chance to get up, is that the flag and national anthem issues are separate to that of becoming a republic. The last referendum, it drove me crazy with so many people in the street arguing they were against a republic because they didn't want to change the flag. Personally I think the aboriginal flag with the southern cross laid on top would be the perfect Aussie flag, but that is a separate issue.

As far as the question goes, I agree with C C, the question needs to be simply, "Do you support Australia becoming a republic". If that is supported, then put forward a couple of different systems and then have a vote on them. I am not a fan of the direct election method as I feel like CC we could end up with Co.ck Smith as our president. But honestly at least he is Australian, and I would take him over an English person as our head of state any day (that really hurt me to say that).

[Woomera]

http://fla.fg-a.com/australC_1xa.gif