Meh, just another work day for me (well, another work day where we're getting paid a stupidly large amount to encourage us to work it in the first place. ). I'm really not at all phased by our reptilian overlords.
As a republican (definately not in the US sense) I find the whole thing tiresome. I am simply avoiding TV for the duration. It is a free day off I suppose but being in the military there are various catches.
By god man! I hope the RSM thrashes you until your eyes bleed!
I hope he does, then I can claim millions in damages
There are actually quite a few republicans in the military, this massive waste of time, money and resources seems to have brought us out of the woodwork
Cromwell was a bit of a That said you caan't argue with his effect on British politics...
Though it would have been nice if he'd have left Ireland alone after...
Bromsy wrote:Awwwww yeah, I'm on board - my girl's favorite x man.
I lol'd.
As to me, working most of it sadly, and then off to specsavers on Tuesday so the boys can get their eyes checked. A stunning few days.
I do appreciate the event though, think the village is having a big gathering on Tuesday in the main park, and they did a 'its a knockout' paraody yesterday at the sports field. Oh and at least we got some gold old british weather.
As a Yank, I would love to see the pomp and circumstance involved in a Jubilee. I find it interesting that all the inbreeding in the monarchy has created such long lived queens. Elizabeth II is about to outpace Victoria for longest reign...
SDFarsight wrote:I'll see your Cromwell and raise you one Charles the Second
Charles II was a republican?
purplefood wrote:Cromwell was a bit of a That said you caan't argue with his effect on British politics...
Though it would have been nice if he'd have left Ireland alone after...
Treadhead, if you get BBC America you can watch it live right now. My wife's enjoying it (actually at the moment she's at yoga, but is recording it for when she gets back).
Mannahnin wrote:Treadhead, if you get BBC America you can watch it live right now. My wife's enjoying it (actually at the moment she's at yoga, but is recording it for when she gets back).
Nice, thanks for reminding me also, BBC is one of the few sites where live feeds will play even over the work block, got it running in the background now.
Mannahnin wrote:Treadhead, if you get BBC America you can watch it live right now. My wife's enjoying it (actually at the moment she's at yoga, but is recording it for when she gets back).
Nice, thanks for reminding me also, BBC is one of the few sites where live feeds will play even over the work block, got it running in the background now.
It's not the same on TV, too impersonal. To feel the press of the crowd, see the horses coming by, to smell the smells... that is what I wish to see, to be there in person. For some reason Great Britain has always fascinated me. One of these days I will get there to see all the things I want to see in person. Maybe I will even figure out why Leeds Castle isn't in Leeds.
Mannahnin wrote:Treadhead, if you get BBC America you can watch it live right now. My wife's enjoying it (actually at the moment she's at yoga, but is recording it for when she gets back).
Nice, thanks for reminding me also, BBC is one of the few sites where live feeds will play even over the work block, got it running in the background now.
It's not the same on TV, too impersonal. To feel the press of the crowd, see the horses coming by, to smell the smells... that is what I wish to see, to be there in person. For some reason Great Britain has always fascinated me. One of these days I will get there to see all the things I want to see in person. Maybe I will even figure out why Leeds Castle isn't in Leeds.
If you ever do make it over, bring clothes for every season since our weather likes to keep us on our toes
Also, we ensure that all monuments are as far away as possible from the places/things they are named after to confuse tourists and people who want to buy our bridges to ship over to America
Mr Hyena wrote:Thank god no one is doing one of those stupid street parties here.
The jubilee is just a giant waste of time and more importantly, taxpayer's money.
Right, im sick of arguing with you unwashed Republican heathens, its time I dropped a logic bomb!
Even if you ignore the fact that millions of British citizens love the Queen, the woman is an integral part of out identity, history and culture, but even ignoring every single good act she has ever done, and ignoring all of the work she does on the nations behalf, even if all of that is put utterly aside and we simply look at it in a financial manner.. Its STILL a gak argument!
The Monarchy run on 0.004% of what we spend on foreign aid, and it currently stands at £32.1m annually.
feth me.. the pubs in London alone will make more than £32 million TODAY!
The monarchy makes the country a fortune. How many millions of people visit the UK and go see a Royal household or pop into Buck Palace? The Scottish tourist board has Balmoral listed as a 5 star location for tourists to visit, so for your fifty pence you probably get about 50,000 tourists a year fething off up to Scotland to check out Balmoral, spending money there (which she pays tax on) spending money in your pubs, cafes, on your buses and trains and in your taxis.
I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?
And whats the alternative, an elected head of state? Some self serving lying, slime ball politician?!
feth me.. would you want a President Blair!? Or a President Cameron? President Miliband!?
You dont become successful in politics unless your a lying sneaky gak bag. Thats how it works. Only the ambitious get to the top, and ambitious politicians will do anything to get the power. By removing amibiton from the Royals, (they are born into it) they dont NEED to lie and cheat and sneak, because they are always there. And I wasnt a massive monarchist until I got to about 26-27 years of age, and actually took an interest in politics and started to really understand how the world works, and then It slapped me in the chops just how fething horrible politicians are.. even the ones I vote for I dont particularly like! The fact is, anyone who should be doing that job doesnt want the job in the first place.
Harry served with me in Afghanistan.. what do you think Blairs kids did? Backdoored into top uni's and then live off Daddys ill gotten gains.
The Queen is worth 50 politicians, and I would support her if she cost us twenty times that amount.
Mannahnin wrote:Treadhead, if you get BBC America you can watch it live right now. My wife's enjoying it (actually at the moment she's at yoga, but is recording it for when she gets back).
Nice, thanks for reminding me also, BBC is one of the few sites where live feeds will play even over the work block, got it running in the background now.
It's not the same on TV, too impersonal. To feel the press of the crowd, see the horses coming by, to smell the smells... that is what I wish to see, to be there in person. For some reason Great Britain has always fascinated me. One of these days I will get there to see all the things I want to see in person. Maybe I will even figure out why Leeds Castle isn't in Leeds.
If you ever do make it over, bring clothes for every season since our weather likes to keep us on our toes
Also, we ensure that all monuments are as far away as possible from the places/things they are named after to confuse tourists and people who want to buy our bridges to ship over to America
That only happened once, and you were just going to throw it out anyway.
AustonT wrote:I love it when republicans hold up Cromwell as an example. It brings warmth and joy to the cockles of my heart. I don't think they get it though
Yes it was a bad choice of picture but I couldn't find a good instantly recognisable picture of the New Model Army.
Mannahnin wrote:Treadhead, if you get BBC America you can watch it live right now. My wife's enjoying it (actually at the moment she's at yoga, but is recording it for when she gets back).
Nice, thanks for reminding me also, BBC is one of the few sites where live feeds will play even over the work block, got it running in the background now.
It's not the same on TV, too impersonal. To feel the press of the crowd, see the horses coming by, to smell the smells... that is what I wish to see, to be there in person. For some reason Great Britain has always fascinated me..
Fundamentally I would rather be a citizen than a subject. There would be nothing to say that a president would have supreme power, we could treat it as we currently do the monarchy. So why not Tony Benn for president or one of the other, admittedly few, decent politicians around. It need not hold any more power than the speaker of the house. The monarch herself isn't entirely good either, but still I don't mind her per se, although the idea of Charlie getting in fills me with dread.
Fundamentally I would rather be a citizen than a subject. There would be nothing to say that a president would have supreme power, we could treat it as we currently do the monarchy. So why not Tony Benn for president or one of the other, admittedly few, decent politicians around. It need not hold any more power than the speaker of the house. The monarch herself isn't entirely good either, but still I don't mind her per se, although the idea of Charlie getting in fills me with dread.
Graham Smith via CNN wrote:After 60 years who can quote a famous speech or point to a moment of crisis or celebration when the queen offered leadership and inspiration?
Mr Hyena wrote:Thank god no one is doing one of those stupid street parties here.
The jubilee is just a giant waste of time and more importantly, taxpayer's money.
Right, im sick of arguing with you unwashed Republican heathens, its time I dropped a logic bomb! ]
How about a counter strike?
The UK is a democracy, or at least we act like we are. How can a hereditary monarch be the head of a democratic country? Yes her political power is effectively non existent (even if she does sign acts of parliment into law) but none the less the existence of such an instiution rather tarnishes those occasions when we 'defend democracy'.
I was listening to a programme on radio 4 a couple of weeks ago that said that 25% of the population is republican, 25% is monarchist and 50% don't care, I would be willing to bet that as time goes on those numbers will swing to the republican side.
Lord Bingo wrote:
You do realize mate that we are citizens, not subjects.
We have a monarchy, therefore are citizens in name alone.
Not true, the British Nationality Act 1981 says that we are citizens, not subjects. So its more than just words. However I will agree that in time we will have to have a look at the monarchy and decide whether it will continue. One method is just have a referendum when a monarch dies, it'll give the republicans there democracy, and it will show how the public still overwhelmingly support the monarchy.
@Palindrome - I and most of the people I know would be in the 50% however if you said to me lets have a vote on the idea of keeping the monarcy or having a voted in public official or president I am quite confidant that most would vote to keep the Monarchy.
Hell just look at Australia for a case of the 'don't care' highier percentage of the population crushing the republican dream and thats from a country that was expecting a high percentage to back the founding of a republic.
Lord Bingo wrote:
Not true, the British Nationality Act 1981 says that we are citizens, not subjects. So its more than just words. However I will agree that in time we will have to have a look at the monarchy and decide whether it will continue. One method is just have a referendum when a monarch dies, it'll give the republicans there democracy, and it will show how the public still overwhelmingly support the monarchy.
Bolded the bits which don't make sense when put together. Because an act says we are called one thing doesn't make it more than words, it makes it that and that alone. You could pass an act saying all Scottish people would be now called Northern English, they would still be Scottish.
As to people overwhelmingly supporting the monarchy...
Palindrome wrote:I was listening to a programme on radio 4 a couple of weeks ago that said that 25% of the population is republican, 25% is monarchist and 50% don't care, I would be willing to bet that as time goes on those numbers will swing to the republican side.
Lord Bingo wrote:
Not true, the British Nationality Act 1981 says that we are citizens, not subjects. So its more than just words. However I will agree that in time we will have to have a look at the monarchy and decide whether it will continue. One method is just have a referendum when a monarch dies, it'll give the republicans there democracy, and it will show how the public still overwhelmingly support the monarchy.
Bolded the bits which don't make sense when put together. Because an act says we are called one thing doesn't make it more than words, it makes it that and that alone. You could pass an act saying all Scottish people would be now called Northern English, they would still be Scottish.
As to people overwhelmingly supporting the monarchy...
Palindrome wrote:I was listening to a programme on radio 4 a couple of weeks ago that said that 25% of the population is republican, 25% is monarchist and 50% don't care, I would be willing to bet that as time goes on those numbers will swing to the republican side.
When you get down to it though, all laws are just words. Also that poll doesn't seem even remotely correct.
"Eight in ten (80%) British adults favour Britain remaining a monarchy compared to 13% that want to see it becoming a republic."
Well, there were apparently about 100 anti-monarchy protesters outside city hall in london compared to quite a number of thousand lining the river with flags
Regardless, I can't believe that it took 2 years to plan some boats to driving upthe river. Extremely boring.
Would much rather have had the queen driven around surrounded by redcoats in hats or something. A big street parade with fire breathers and so on in front and behind
Yeah give me an over privileged OAP over a politician, he'll an OAP chosen at random over a politician will do me.
When the best you can offer as a good replacement Head of State is Tony fething Benn I have to consider how much the republican supporters have though this one threw!
I saw that bunch of republicans in the rain in London and had to laugh. They look like a buch of wargamers heading to a convention with their combination of Ill chosen and fitting clothes and odd hats; all looking far too serious when all around them were partying. It pleases me that the Queen got God to rain on the fethers.
treadhead1944 wrote:As a Yank, I would love to see the pomp and circumstance involved in a Jubilee. I find it interesting that all the inbreeding in the monarchy has created such long lived queens. Elizabeth II is about to outpace Victoria for longest reign...
That's the only thing I care about when it comes to the monarchy over there, Elizabeth II could win at being queen. Although if she lived to be 100 that would mean the next monarch would be what, 80 or so?
I can explain why people protesting (republicans) outnumbered those showing their support (normal people)
It is because people who are minorities (politically) are usually the people who are wrong and over opinionated and most importantly stupid. so they turn up in "mass" (which is still less that the other side) people who are normal and intelligent just don't bother as they have jobs/more important things to do.
Furthermore consider the people who put decorations out and stuff at home and compare that to the people who protested.
The police arrested them even though they committed no crime perhaps?
What, 20 people? Out of perhaps the 100 protesters. For the moment republicanism is a fringe element at best. Might change in the next 50 years who knows, but the whole time Queen Elizabeth II is around, Republicanism will remain nothing more than a sideshow. (may change under Charles)
I believe the U.K is technically deemed a "constitutional monarchy" which is a type of representative democracy. That would make citizens and not subjects, although it doesn't help that a large group of people send the royal family gifts one day every year.
That would be why the republican protesters outnumbered the people showing their support then?
Or republicans are simply spending their time more wisely. I spent the day looking after my son and playing some TF2, much more useful than standing about in the rain.
What would you rather I do then notprop? After all the queen is effectively a nonentity; she has very, very little influence over my life or the country as a whole. I am against the monarcy is principle but I am hardly after her blood.
AustonT wrote:I love it when republicans hold up Cromwell as an example. It brings warmth and joy to the cockles of my heart. I don't think they get it though
Yes it was a bad choice of picture but I couldn't find a good instantly recognisable picture of the New
The point is that Republicans won a great victory in a series of civil wars, and created a another hereditary monarch. Then by popular demand the actual monarchy return. It's like saying Augustus restored the Republic. Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.
Unless you just want to be seen as a bit of a whiner and a party pooper you should be doing a bit more than coming in to a happy joy joy thread and pissing on others fires. Courage of your convictions and all that.
AustonT wrote:The point is that Republicans won a great victory in a series of civil wars, and created a another hereditary monarch. Then by popular demand the actual monarchy return. It's like saying Augustus restored the Republic. Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.
So your point was only tangentially relevant to my point/picture then. Ok. Moving on...
AustonT wrote:The point is that Republicans won a great victory in a series of civil wars, and created a another hereditary monarch. Then by popular demand the actual monarchy return. It's like saying Augustus restored the Republic. Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.
So your point was only tangentially relevant to my point/picture then. Ok. Moving on...
Lord Bingo wrote:
You do realize mate that we are citizens, not subjects.
We have a monarchy, therefore are citizens in name alone.
Absolute bloody nonsense.
Its 2012 mate, if you want to sit when the national anthem is on, utterly ignore the Queen when she walks past you in the street, or make a big sign saying "I hate the Queen" then you can. You wont get dragged off to the stocks.
This is why I dont take Republicans seriously. Their tired old arguments have no grounding in fact. As I have proved, saying they cost the nation loads is utter nonsense, and as is your claim that we aren't free citizens. The Royals and the nation as a whole has moved on. The Queen doesnt have "absolute" power, she is just a really nice dignified old lady, and I find peoples genuine insults (you are mature enough not to have thrown any by the way, but plenty on here do) to be genuinelly offensive.
She is the head of State and some of the things people say about her, you would deserve a punch in the face if you levelled them at a random pensioner in the street, let alone the bloody Queen! Seriously what would you do if someone shouted at your granny she was a disgusting old nazi reptile?!
Love the Queen, hate the Queen, free to choose you are! Thus, rendering your point utterly obsolete surely?
notprop wrote:If you gonna be a bear, be a grizzly!
Unless you just want to be seen as a bit of a whiner and a party pooper you should be doing a bit more than coming in to a happy joy joy thread and pissing on others fires. Courage of your convictions and all that.
I'm sorry I wasn't aware that expressing an opinion made me seem like a 'bit of a whiner'. I do stand up for my convictions but I don't have to go all the way to London to do so.
The Queen doesnt have "absolute" power
As she signs off all our laws then she is the most powerful individual in the country, in theory at least. The monarchy has stayed apolitical for a long time now but that doesn't change the fact that the royal family does have a lot of power if they chose to excersize it. Of course if they tried they may find that their support would rapidly evaporate but its still there. If the roayl family was stripped of all legal power powers and became the ceremonial head of state and nothing more then I would have no problem with that. I would still avoid all the fawning that goes on over the royal family though.
TL : DR A monarchy is fundamentally incompatable with a democracy.
I don't doubt that we are free subjects but if we are to ever become the meritocracy we should then it's a bit of a joke that the head of state is put there through hereditary means.
I've said before I have little problem with the Queen, but Charles is an idiot, constantly talking about subjects he knows little about (GM crops, environmental issues).
My point about Tony Benn was that although you may not agree with his ideology, you certainly can't question his conviction toward it. He's the sort of old school politician that was never swayed by the promise of power and, at least seemed to, always stay true to what he believed. I would like a position just as Prime Minister is the head of the House of Commons, while then why not a head of the House of Lords, after all their role is to ratify and amend laws anyway.
I don't doubt that we are free subjects but if we are to ever become the meritocracy we should then it's a bit of a joke that the head of state is put there through hereditary means.
I've said before I have little problem with the Queen, but Charles is an idiot, constantly talking about subjects he knows little about (GM crops, environmental issues).
My point about Tony Benn was that although you may not agree with his ideology, you certainly can't question his conviction toward it. He's the sort of old school politician that was never swayed by the promise of power and, at least seemed to, always stay true to what he believed. I would like a position just as Prime Minister is the head of the House of Commons, while then why not a head of the House of Lords, after all their role is to ratify and amend laws anyway.
Fair enough regards Benn, I dislike socialist types and I really hate cringing self loathing white people who seem to be desperate for us al to feel guilty about what our forebears did, but regards his integrity and conviction, I can agree, so I merely dislike him as opposed to loathe the bloke.
And we can agree to disagree, regards the Royals, this is a democracy after all and we are free citizens.
On that note....
The Republic facebook group has 14,000 likes.
The Royal Family has 550,000.
And check this out, I'm sure the Guardian is the favourite paper of Republicans as well, so its a good source.
As the Queen prepares to celebrate her diamond jubilee, the royal family is enjoying record popularity, but things could get a good deal more complicated after she leaves the scene, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.
Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.
Pro-royal feeling is spread remarkably equally among the social classes, and across the regions of England and Wales. It is less marked in Scotland – where 36% say the country would be better off without the Windsors – but even there a solid 50% feel the opposite way. Support is stronger among the older, and especially among Conservative voters, in whose ranks it reaches 82%. But across every age group and among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters alike, the monarchy is enjoying solid support.
Back to Tony Benn because I like dissing him, two facts;
Being a Viscount didn't seem to do him any harm in getting where he was in life, it seems hereditary privilege is all the rage even with the Lefties.
He's not even the first hit when you google him, how popular can he be. I'm with google, i would rather have Tony Bennet too, it's about time we jazzed things up a bit!
notprop wrote:Back to Tony Benn because I like dissing him, two facts;
Being a Viscount didn't seem to do him any harm in getting where he was in life, it seems hereditary privilege is all the rage even with the Lefties.
He's not even the first hit when you google him, how popular can he be. I'm with google, i would rather have Tony Bennet too, it's about time we jazzed things up a bit!
He was elected, you know, by constituents. Then brought in peerage reform.
His successful campaign to renounce his hereditary peerage was instrumental in the creation of the Peerage Act 1963
And seriously? you judge peoples worth on who comes up on google?
notprop wrote:Back to Tony Benn because I like dissing him, two facts;
Being a Viscount didn't seem to do him any harm in getting where he was in life, it seems hereditary privilege is all the rage even with the Lefties.
He's not even the first hit when you google him, how popular can he be. I'm with google, i would rather have Tony Bennet too, it's about time we jazzed things up a bit!
He was elected, you know, by constituents. Then brought in peerage reform.
His successful campaign to renounce his hereditary peerage was instrumental in the creation of the Peerage Act 1963
And seriously? you judge peoples worth on who comes up on google?
Ah yes, Peerage reform, served us well has that. We no longer have a mixed body of learned mostly impartial men and women to discuss the important issues of the day and now have a collection of ex-politicos and their rewarded cronies recreating those self same political party structures in the upper house that most of us dislike so much. And now that MMatty has already mentioned nazis I can safely say that it's worth reminding that Hitler was also elected.
Secondly - T-O-N-Y B-E-N-N-E-T. When google's right it's right, doods got a sweet voice.:jazzfingerclickingorkicon:
Exactly, not quite the Queen replacement material you were suggesting.
Anyway we're British, who wants a Head of State that will stop Wars? We want one that will deliver the enemies head on a pike to the British people. Liz has a steely look in her eye that says just try it! Look at the way she dispatched that half dead bird a few years ago. Eye of the fething Tiger I tells ya!
notprop wrote:Exactly, not quite the Queen replacement material you were suggesting.
Anyway we're British, who wants a Head of State that will stop Wars? We want one that will deliver the enemies head on a pike to the British people. Liz has a steely look in her eye that says just try it! Look at the way she dispatched that half dead bird a few years ago. Eye of the fething Tiger I tells ya!
I think someone who lived through and fought in the second world war has every right to ask us to stop fighting an unnecessary and unwinnable war. But that is beside the point and somewhat off topic, the question is not the Queen vs Tony Benn, it's monarchy vs republic. I think people get far too tied to the idea of Liz, would they feel the same if it was Charlie, or Will, or Harry, or even Andrew. I am trying to offer a system where absolute power doesn't reside in a single pair of hands, we don't want an American style President, but we don't necessarily have to have one.
What's wrong with Tony Benn? He's a top bloke, met him years ago in Bristol. Genuinely an intelligent man, and has spent his life trying to make other people's lives better. Contrast with the majority of the lying, thieving bastards we have in government at the moment who got caught with their hands in the till and then giggled 'Oh, naughty me!' before carrying on exactly as before.
Right, im sick of arguing with you unwashed Republican heathens, its time I dropped a logic bomb!
Even if you ignore the fact that millions of British citizens love the Queen, the woman is an integral part of out identity, history and culture, but even ignoring every single good act she has ever done, and ignoring all of the work she does on the nations behalf, even if all of that is put utterly aside and we simply look at it in a financial manner.. Its STILL a gak argument!
The Monarchy run on 0.004% of what we spend on foreign aid, and it currently stands at £32.1m annually.
feth me.. the pubs in London alone will make more than £32 million TODAY!
I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?
You dont become successful in politics unless your a lying sneaky gak bag. Thats how it works. Only the ambitious get to the top, and ambitious politicians will do anything to get the power. By removing amibiton from the Royals, (they are born into it) they dont NEED to lie and cheat and sneak, because they are always there. And I wasnt a massive monarchist until I got to about 26-27 years of age, and actually took an interest in politics and started to really understand how the world works, and then It slapped me in the chops just how fething horrible politicians are.. even the ones I vote for I dont particularly like! The fact is, anyone who should be doing that job doesnt want the job in the first place.
Harry served with me in Afghanistan.. what do you think Blairs kids did? Backdoored into top uni's and then live off Daddys ill gotten gains.
The Queen is worth 50 politicians, and I would support her if she cost us twenty times that amount.
Gawd bless er!
Great post and completely agree! People forget how much money the Monarchy makes the country, when I've lived and travelled abroad it's amazing how much other countries like the UK Monarchy or are the very least fascinated by it.
Great post and completely agree! People forget how much money the Monarchy makes the country, when I've lived and travelled abroad. It's amazing how much other countries like the UK Monarchy or are the very least fascinated by it.
As in, it's a great excuse to practice your brick throwing skill?
George Spiggott wrote:Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.
I bet Charles I would disagree with you
Great post and completely agree! People forget how much money the Monarchy makes the country, when I've lived and travelled abroad. It's amazing how much other countries like the UK Monarchy or are the very least fascinated by it.
British monarchy has never made me any money. I think that all of Canada can probably make a similar claim.
George Spiggott wrote:Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.
I bet Charles I would disagree with you
I didn't write that. The war merely redefined monarchy in England rather than removed it. AustinT seems to be saying that's a poor result for the war. He has a point.
Cant be fethed with the jubilee, good excuse to drink though.
Id like the monarchy if they actually did anything other than sit around on their fat pampered behinds.
Give me a king that goes around riding a horse and directs battles, or drives a tank or something. Give the monarchy full control or sack em off, not this half arsed nonsense we have now.
As an American I can tell you that the worst thing we ever did to our culture, possibly the root of all that is bad with our culture, is switching out a human being for a few pieces of paper. Adoration of those papers slowly corrupted us into a nation of fundamentalists.
I really cannot fathom the hatred that some people have for the Royal Family, I think it's mostly jealousy and ignorance.
Matty has made excellent points on the previous pages, and I'd suggest going further and giving the Queen more power in terms of being able to expel corrupt MP's.
The day that we loose our Royal Family will be a sad day for the UK and lead us down a slippery slope of reputation tarnishing Presidents.
That's quite a bit more problematic than you seem to think, at first blush.
I grant you, nepotism is rife within British culture. But a meritocracy is not an impossible utopia, which we shouldn't even bother trying to achieve just because it's a bit difficult to put into practice.
Meritocracy and democracy should not be considered ends in and of themselves. Removing the monarch would not make society better. Look at us with our Constitution. You have enough problems despite having the Queen around. Getting rid of her, I can assure you, will only lead to many more. This is one matter that we "colonials" have more experience regarding.
I think a meritocracy is a noble goal, and should sort itself out from then on.
Solely removing the monarchy and expecting things to suddenly get better would be stupid. But with other things going on concurrently with such measures there stands a great opportunity for this country to become an actual democracy. We can't remove the monarchy and leave the house of lords as it is, but then again what would be the point in reforming the house of lords to not allow hereditary peers, while still allowing the biggest ones of all.
Some of us prefer the laws to be based on precedent and a written language. They lend an air of predictability to our everyday lives.
I suppose others might prefer the whims of an absolute monarch.
Fortunately, most civilized countries have done away with the monarchy. Even those who retain them see them as a figurehead, not as having any real power.
biccat wrote:I suppose others might prefer the whims of an absolute monarch.
I suppose they might whoever they are but they and absolute monarchy are hardly relevant to this conversation.
...unless someone were to provide a comparison between the US and England based on the presence of the Constitution in one and the Monarch in the other.
biccat wrote:I suppose others might prefer the whims of an absolute monarch.
I suppose they might whoever they are but they and absolute monarchy are hardly relevant to this conversation.
...unless someone were to provide a comparison between the US and England based on the presence of the Constitution in one and the Monarch in the other.
We have a constitution...
It's a touch unconventional maybe...
biccat wrote:...unless someone were to provide a comparison between the US and England based on the presence of the Constitution in one and the Monarch in the other.
Herp takes derp. Checkmate. Is that how we're playing?
OR no one is talking about absolute monarchy in even the slightest way ... except for you. The contrast I made was between the veneration of a living human being and the adoration of pieces of paper.
Manchu wrote:Herp takes derp. Checkmate. Is that how we're playing?
Your sharp criticism and exceptional skill at witty responses are unmatched; your barbed words are too much for the more simpleminded here to comprehend, let alone fully grasp the weightiness of their bite. Your lexographical mastery endures no contest in this, the most weightiest of topics.
Manchu wrote:OR no one is talking about absolute monarchy in even the slightest way ... except for you. The contrast I made was between the veneration of a living human being and the adoration of pieces of paper.
You drew a contrast between a written source of law and an individual, thereby leading one to the conclusion that the individual could equally function of a source of law.
biccat wrote:You drew a contrast between a written source of law and an individual, thereby leading one to the conclusion that the individual could equally function of a source of law.
I suppose that if one completely ignored the context of the statement in favor of, say, some kind of transparent personal vendetta that might indeed be the conclusion to which "one" might be led.
Manchu wrote:I suppose that if one completely ignored the context of the statement in favor of, say, some kind of transparent personal vendetta that might indeed be the conclusion to which "one" might be led.
If someone were to interepret facts in such a manner, they would be more than welcome to. It certainly wouldn't be the first time it's happened here.
But upon reading "As an American I can tell you that the worst thing we ever did to our culture, possibly the root of all that is bad with our culture, is switching out a human being for a few pieces of paper" as I moused over the thread, I was curious what direction the thread had turned.
Imagine my surprise when it had taken a predictable one, albeit from an unpredicted source.
I won't pretend that my distaste for fundamentalism is apolitical but I object to the notion that, given some familiarity with my posts, it is surprising.
I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone, rather than some demi-god figure, above us all. That, in the 21st century, someone has "divine right" to subjugate me is an absolute disgrace. Hierarchies, if they must exist, should not be a given, your place within them should be earned, by what you can provide toward that position.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone,
All I'm talking about is a reminder that government is ultimately about people rather than ideas. That is something we have lost, or partly lost, in the United States as a result of a certain worshipful attitude toward the Constitution. For example, if universal healthcare is unconstitutional, some would say that means universal healthcare is wrong (that is literally what people think in this country). To me, it would indicate that our Constitution is no longer up to the task of providing for the government of people.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone,
Man I wonder if that's been tried before?
Image doesn't work, but I guess you're referring to the 10 commandments? Well I guess the first few modern laws would be I am the only Law, Worship no other Law etc. Comparing a religion that was created as a form of social control with modern law in a country ruled by consent is a bit different.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone,
Man I wonder if that's been tried before?
Image doesn't work, but I guess you're referring to the 10 commandments? Well I guess the first few modern laws would be I am the only Law, Worship no other Law etc. Comparing a religion that was created as a form of social control with modern law in a country ruled by consent is a bit different.
I suppose I can forgive you because the image didn't work but no it is not the 10 commandments. It's the Twelve Tables.
Manchu wrote:What do you mean by "unflinching reverence"?
All I'm talking about is a reminder that government is ultimately about people rather than ideas. That is something we have lost, or partly lost, in the United States as a result of a certain worshipful attitude toward the Constitution. For example, if universal healthcare is unconstitutional, some would say that means universal healthcare is wrong (that is literally what people think in this country). To me, it would indicate that our Constitution is no longer up to the task of providing for the government of people.
Your constitution, I believe, can be amended to keep up with moral relativism. Government isn't about people, or at least shouldn't be. This is the problem with modern democracy, it has become a popularity contest. Government should be about ideas and ideals, and how we as societies move toward becoming fair and just for all. I don't know your constitution in any depth but isn't it "for the people" therefore providing healthcare for all, it could be argued, could fall under that.
By unflinching reverence I am referring to the worshipful attitude you yourself noted. And some of the idiots I have seen on the television around this jubilee.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone, rather than some demi-god figure, above us all. That, in the 21st century, someone has "divine right" to subjugate me is an absolute disgrace. Hierarchies, if they must exist, should not be a given, your place within them should be earned, by what you can provide toward that position.
Yes but mate your arguing against a position that doesn't exist!
The monarcy has evolved, its nothing like you seem to wish it was anymore.. unflinching reverence?! Demi-God?! "Divine right to subjugate?!
feth me.. everything your saying is ridiculously clichéd. Its the same stuff people are saying on the Republic Facebook page that I am busy trolling. They make out that any show of support makes you a "cringing peasant desperate to grovel in the dust" and all that horse gak. Its a classic strawman.
I'm not even a huge monarchist. I just think the Queen is a nice old lady, and the idea that they do "feth all" and have great lives is nonsense. Charles I like less, but I don't hate the bloke, and I like Harry and William and think they actually try hard. Much harder than the fething politicians. And ultimately a few million quid a year is feth all anyway, and we do actually get something back, most importantly, its my cultural heritage and it means alot to me, that's fething it!
Would ANYONE support the Monarchy if it worked anything like the way you and your Republican chums wished it did? Of course not! Jesus.. I cant even believe some of the stuff you typed.. divine right to subjugate.
If the Queen walked into Subway behind you and said "May I push in, one is in a hurry?" and you said "Piss off, I was first and I want my vegi delight on responsibly sourced bread, oh and I support Palestine and save the whales" you wouldn't go to prison. You wouldn't be "forced to show unflinching reverence" to anyone.
So exactly what have you got against the 69% of Britons that like things just the way they are? And why to you think you have a "divine right" to force your unpopular regime change (scrapping the monarchy) onto everyone else?
AustonT wrote:I suppose I can forgive you because the image didn't work but no it is not the 10 commandments. It's the Twelve Tables.
Much more relevant, but still it legislated for an unquestioned hierarchy, which is a monarchy by another name. Still, I don't really know enough about them to know their benefits and failings.
Scrabb wrote:[my question makes as much sense as yours]
If KK's question was truly as irrelevant as yours, yours would still not be relevant. But KK's question is quite relevant. As for the picture, it is widely held that poor people end up in the military far more often than rich people. The DoD maintains that the American military is solidly middle class, of course.
AustonT wrote:I suppose I can forgive you because the image didn't work but no it is not the 10 commandments. It's the Twelve Tables.
Much more relevant, but still it legislated for an unquestioned hierarchy, which is a monarchy by another name. Still, I don't really know enough about them to know their benefits and failings.
Laws clearly eteched into actual stone. Just as if not more malleable than any other laws. In other words there's no such thing as laws etched in stone (metaphorically speaking)
If you were to meet the Queen there are demands on protocol which must be adhered to, noone else has the right to ask you to bow to them. You can't be incarcerated for not doing so, but still, even the request/demand is offensive, archaic and demeaning.
Exactly what right are they put there by then? Because it's always been a divine one (which as the head of a religion has always seemed a conflict of interest to me). And we are subjugated, we are beneath them, therefore are their subjects.
If you want unflinching reverence, turn on your telly, it's being inhabited by idiots.
And I have no divine right, being an atheist precludes me from one.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?
I believe that everyone has a chance to, maybe not the same chance, but a chance nonetheless.
dæl wrote:Your constitution, I believe, can be amended to keep up with moral relativism.
Leaving aside your strange reference to moral relativism, the fact that the Constitution may be amended is likely it's best feature.
Government isn't about people, or at least shouldn't be.
That is a chilling slogan indeed.
People pass, nations continue. But you must allow for moral relativism, say your constitution had made homosexuality illegal, that would need amending.
AustonT wrote:
Laws clearly eteched into actual stone. Just as if not more malleable than any other laws. In other words there's no such thing as laws etched in stone (metaphorically speaking)
Yes, but there is a difference between referenda on amendments, and the animal farm 'up a ladder in the dead of night with a pot of paint'
biccat wrote:You don't even have to be born in the USA.
biccat wrote:10 of the last 12 presidents served in the military. Only 12 presidents never served.
11 of the last 12 presidents were white. Only 1 president has been non-white. Can we conclude from this that all white people have the same chance of becoming president?
Manchu wrote:11 of the last 12 presidents were white. Only 1 president has been non-white. Can we conclude from this that all white people have the same chance of becoming president?
Yep.
dæl wrote:
biccat wrote:You don't even have to be born in the USA.
Scrabb wrote:[my question makes as much sense as yours]
If KK's question was truly as irrelevant as yours, yours would still not be relevant. But KK's question is quite relevant. As for the picture, it is widely held that poor people end up in the military far more often than rich people. The DoD maintains that the American military is solidly middle class, of course.
I thought KK was showing us the next President. You know, white, military background and all. Maybe he can shed some light on the situation.
You and dæl were discussing the monarchy and meritocracies. Dæl claimed meritocracies and democracies were incompatable with monarchies. He never said America was a good example of a meritocracy.
I guess I'm frustrated with KillKrazy. He used to discuss things on these boards. Presumably he got tired of people misconstruing his positions and being willfully ignorant and has now given up making constructive points.
I guess the suggestion was that the absence of monarchy does not actually make a society more meritocratic. The US, sharing the same language and much of the same history as far as government goes with Great Britain, is an adroit example.
Scrabb wrote:[my question makes as much sense as yours]
If KK's question was truly as irrelevant as yours, yours would still not be relevant. But KK's question is quite relevant. As for the picture, it is widely held that poor people end up in the military far more often than rich people. The DoD maintains that the American military is solidly middle class, of course.
I thought KK was showing us the next President. You know, white, military background and all. Maybe he can shed some light on the situation.
Manchu wrote:I guess the suggestion was that the absence of monarchy does not actually make a society more meritocratic. The US, sharing the same language and much of the same history as far as government goes with Great Britain, is an adroit example.
Right, but you're guessing. KK should post a little bit more like you and Dæl. And if I remember correctly he used to do just that.
Well, with posts like biccat suggesting all the presidents but one being white means that all white people have the same chance of being president, there's an undeniable wisdom to not getting in very far.
Manchu wrote:Well, with posts like biccat suggesting all the presidents but one being white means that all white people have the same chance of being president, there's an undeniable wisdom to not getting in very far.
You're seriously suggesting that not everyone has an equal chance of being president?
I suppose at some level you've got a point (you have to enter the race and get people to vote for you), but it's tenuous at best. I don't have as equal a chance of winning the lottery because I don't play. That means the lottery is inherently racist or something.
Manchu wrote:Well, with posts like biccat suggesting all the presidents but one being white means that all white people have the same chance of being president, there's an undeniable wisdom to not getting in very far.
You're seriously suggesting that not everyone has an equal chance of being president?
I suppose at some level you've got a point (you have to enter the race and get people to vote for you), but it's tenuous at best. I don't have as equal a chance of winning the lottery because I don't play. That means the lottery is inherently racist or something.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone born into poverty with parents who have drug problems (regardless of that persons race) has the same chance of becoming president as someone who comes from a very wealthy family that can afford the best schools and tutoring and whose parents have political connections?
EDIT: 3 posts of serious suggestions, we may be in need of a C-C-Combo breaker.
Manchu wrote:Are you seriously saying that all it takes to be president is meeting the bare constitutional requirements?
No. You have to be elected.
Perhaps this explains your confusion with our constitutional "fanaticism."
dæl wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that someone born into poverty with parents who have drug problems (regardless of that persons race) has the same chance of becoming president as someone who comes from a very wealthy family that can afford the best schools and tutoring and whose parents have political connections?
Yes, I do.
Considering our current president, you would think anyone can make it.
dæl wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that someone born into poverty with parents who have drug problems (regardless of that persons race) has the same chance of becoming president as someone who comes from a very wealthy family that can afford the best schools and tutoring and whose parents have political connections?
Yes, I do.
Considering our current president, you would think anyone can make it.
This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.
Manchu wrote:Are you seriously saying that all it takes to be president is meeting the bare constitutional requirements?
No. You have to be elected.
Perhaps this explains your confusion with our constitutional "fanaticism."
I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected. I don't feel your apparent confusion is any better explained thereby, however.
Manchu wrote:I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected.
No, it provides that the president "be elected".
The Constitutional requirements for eligibility are:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
biccat wrote:
dæl wrote:This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.
dæl wrote:This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.
No, but the president himself was a drug addict.
When?
Just after he was a time traveller and went back and stole the souls of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.
Looked it up, he smoked pot and tried coke. The dopefiend, that's addiction in a nutshell right there. Or did you forget the distinction between user and addict?
Manchu wrote:I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected.
No, it provides that the president "be elected".
It would be insulting to children to call your line of argument here "childish." Vulgar feints aside, the question stands: you believe that race, religion, gender, and socio-economic background have no bearing on a candidate's chances of election?
Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?
You don't even have to be born in the USA.
I am unsure about your skill level as a lawyer.
biccat wrote:
Manchu wrote:I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected.
No, it provides that the president "be elected".
The Constitutional requirements for eligibility are:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Yeah, foreign-born people who become naturalized still are not eligible for the office of president, as they were neither born in the USA nor were they citizens at the time that the constitution was adopted. That second bit is only there because every president before Van Buren (I think) was technically born a British citizen.
You even quoted the right section of the constitution, yet failed to understand what it said. Just... wow.
biccat wrote:edit: To head off some pedant who thinks he's witty; yes, I know he didn't "smoke" cocaine.
I am the witty pedant your mother warned you about: I don't know why you used quotes there. It is possible to smoke cocaine. You can do it on its own, or in its crack rock form.
dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.
Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...
dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.
Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...
There was a massive debate here after it was leaked as he might have put his fellow soldiers in greater danger, was taking up extra resources while other soldiers didn't have body armour, and other such things. Personally, I think he did the right thing going there, but the media should not have reported it until he was back.
dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.
Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...
Going to Afghanistan was a mistake. He basically put a giant day-glo bullseye on his unit while he was there, and contributed nothing more than any other soldier. But the gesture was nice.
...and I never understood, outside of poor taste, what the big deal about his costume was. Wasn't the king of England, whoever the one that abdicated the throne in the 1930s, an actual Nazi?
dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.
Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...
Going to Afghanistan was a mistake. He basically put a giant day-glo bullseye on his unit while he was there, and contributed nothing more than any other soldier. But the gesture was nice.
Do you suppose that was the entire point? *Gasp* Royals serving their country like any other bloke, those self righteous DEMONS. The Afgans had no idea Prince Harry was in country so your day glo bulls eye is at best wishful fiction.
@notprop.
To be fair there are manypearls of wisdom that can be learned from toilet walls, if you're willing to sift through the offers of buggery.
@ George Spiggott.
I believe Harry now outranks his brother, and there's talk of Harry heading back out there. This time in an Apache, which would be better all round as he'd be far less recognisable while in a gunship.
dæl wrote:@ George Spiggott.
I believe Harry now outranks his brother, and there's talk of Harry heading back out there. This time in an Apache, which would be better all round as he'd be far less recognisable while in a gunship.
dæl wrote:@ George Spiggott.
I believe Harry now outranks his brother, and there's talk of Harry heading back out there. This time in an Apache, which would be better all round as he'd be far less recognisable while in a gunship.
So what?
So it removes the main concern of him being recognised and thus being a liability to his unit.
dæl wrote:So it removes the main concern of him being recognised and thus being a liability to his unit.
I understand the chances of this were slight anyway. You could reduce the chance further by bringing them all home. We could save some money into the bargain, I understand cash is short right now.
dæl wrote:So it removes the main concern of him being recognised and thus being a liability to his unit.
I understand the chances of this were slight anyway. You could reduce the chance further by bringing them all home. We could save some money into the bargain, I understand cash is short right now.
As for it being a small chance, I wouldn't have wanted to be ginger when he was on infantry detail over there. As for bringing them back, well we should have started thinking about that a decade ago, an invasion is all well and good if you really think it necessary, but you should probably think about your exit strategy before you even go.
dæl wrote:As for it being a small chance, I wouldn't have wanted to be ginger when he was on infantry detail over there. As for bringing them back, well we should have started thinking about that a decade ago, an invasion is all well and good if you really think it necessary, but you should probably think about your exit strategy before you even go.
dæl wrote:As for it being a small chance, I wouldn't have wanted to be ginger when he was on infantry detail over there. As for bringing them back, well we should have started thinking about that a decade ago, an invasion is all well and good if you really think it necessary, but you should probably think about your exit strategy before you even go.
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?
You don't even have to be born in the USA.
I am unsure about your skill level as a lawyer.
The term is "non-justiciable political question."
Lawyer speak for "don't like it? Vote."
I hope that you are not attempting to sidestep the fact that the consitution is in its essence a form of contract, and you, being a contract lawyer of sorts, managed to quote a portion of said contract whilst failing to understand its meaning.
I would be unsure of the skill level of any tort lawyer who appears to be unable to properly read a contract.
And last I heard, the interpretation of the wording of your constitution was not considered to be non-justiciable. But what do I know? I'm Canadian, eh?
SilverMK2 wrote:Guys, this thread is supposed to be about how awesome the Queen is, not how rubbish the constitution of the country we didn't want so gave away is
Yeah, but wouldn't a piece of paper just be more awesome than Ye Olde Queenie, is kind of where we ended up, or at least where I ended up.
Iron Maiden should have played at the concert. I wasn't so keen on Madness editing Our House so it was more repetitive, but hey-ho.
And Will.I.Am looked like a complete tool as usual.
SilverMK2 wrote:Guys, this thread is supposed to be about how awesome the Queen is, not how rubbish the constitution of the country we didn't want so gave away is
Yeah, but wouldn't a piece of paper just be more awesome than Ye Olde Queenie, is kind of where we ended up, or at least where I ended up.
I'd much rather have queenie to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm not exactly a royalist either. Just one of the generally content quiet majority.
Well I think that the shout that went up for "Phil the Greek" summed it up nicely". There's a lot of love for the Royals out there.
As to the Republican debate? No matter how you look at it, you would have to vote for someone and that's the crux of the matter. All they will be interested in is getting your vote nothing else. At least with the Royals, they have no power and they have been shown that they do react to bad press. So you have a system in place that has been around for hundreds of years that works. Having a President will mean the involvment of politics and it would go downhill from there.
It's like the whole Lords reform that they want. How would that work? The idea is that the Lords acts as a block to the government, going downa voting route would open up a real can or worms. If you idea all other parties and just have the main 3 ones, you would then have to have a system that divides the seating up equally and so no party has a majority. How would you then vote them in? If you open it up to a general vote you could have a House of Lords that is full of toadies of the current government so that they have a clean sweep.
It's an odd thing in the UK, things just "work". No political party had any right to lay claim to the Jubilee celebrations, it happened because it's a British thing.
Wolfstan wrote:Well I think that the shout that went up for "Phil the Greek" summed it up nicely". There's a lot of love for the Royals out there.
Among those at the celebrations.
As to the Republican debate? No matter how you look at it, you would have to vote for someone and that's the crux of the matter. All they will be interested in is getting your vote nothing else. At least with the Royals, they have no power and they have been shown that they do react to bad press. So you have a system in place that has been around for hundreds of years that works. Having a President will mean the involvment of politics and it would go downhill from there.
Royals do have power, a lot more than people realise, they pass all laws, and what they ask for in return is always done behind closed doors. Do you not think it funny that we are protecting the non native royal favourite pheasant by destroying the indigenous buzzard?
So being accountable and wanting people's approval is bad, but reacting to bad press is good?
Slavery worked for hundreds of years too. (btw they aren't comparable, but I'm just proving somethings long standing existence doesn't make it morally justifiable)
It's like the whole Lords reform that they want. How would that work? The idea is that the Lords acts as a block to the government, going downa voting route would open up a real can or worms. If you idea all other parties and just have the main 3 ones, you would then have to have a system that divides the seating up equally and so no party has a majority. How would you then vote them in? If you open it up to a general vote you could have a House of Lords that is full of toadies of the current government so that they have a clean sweep.
Who needs democracy eh? I mean royalty are selected by God and who are we mere mortals to argue. And it's not like the hereditary peers of the lords made their fortunes in unsavoury manners all those centuries ago. So yeah, they're good, and lets add a few that give money to fund political parties campaigns, we need them in the House of Lords too.
mattyrm wrote:I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?
Despite taking no particular side in this debate, I can't resist pointing out the deficiencies in this so-called "logic bomb".
Buckingham Palace visitor figures: 600,000 per annum. Cost of entry: £18 (I shall generously assume every visitor is an adult paying the full price.). Corporation tax rate: 24%.
Result: (600,000 x £18)/24 = £2,592,000. That's about less than a tenth of your estimate, even presuming that Buck House deducts absolutely no expenses from its profits. In practice, the figure will be vastly lower even than that, once the costs of commercial staff, advertising, insurance, security and business expenses have been deducted. So remind me: who must have flunked maths?
I also presume that you have never been to Paris. If you had, you might have noticed that Versailles is still quite the draw for tourists (2.5 million visitors per annum) despite no king having been in residence since 1789...
mattyrm wrote:Harry served with me in Afghanistan.. what do you think Blairs kids did? Backdoored into top uni's and then live off Daddys ill gotten gains.
Not at all like Prince William, who got into St. Andrews with crappy A-Levels (An A, a B and a C, when the standard offer is AAB.), or indeed at all like his dad who got into Cambridge with only a B in History and a C in French...
azazel the cat wrote:I hope that you are not attempting to sidestep the fact that the consitution is in its essence a form of contract, and you, being a contract lawyer of sorts, managed to quote a portion of said contract whilst failing to understand its meaning.
I understand it completely. I just recognize that the court isn't going to do anything about it. Without enforcement the provision is meaningless.
azazel the cat wrote:I would be unsure of the skill level of any tort lawyer who appears to be unable to properly read a contract.
I wouldn't. Tort lawyers generally don't do contracts.
azazel the cat wrote:And last I heard, the interpretation of the wording of your constitution was not considered to be non-justiciable. But what do I know? I'm Canadian, eh?
Then you don't understand the political question doctrine. Then again, most Americans don't either.
Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?
The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.
I think the problem with the Republican argument is that its trying to apply logic to something that's not logical. If you look at the cold hard facts then yeah, the monarchy most likely does cost more money than it earns, whilst the Queen does pay taxes they most likely don't cover all the expenses. However the monarchy is not there as a cash cow, it is supposed to be a focal point of pride and national identify not just for the UK but the entire Commonwealth realms. If you replace it with a President you surrender something that ours, the Monarchy is a symbol of our country, surrendering it is like giving up your heart for a mechanical replacement, it works, but its not right. Being British is not about being logical, we still drive on the proper side of the road whilst almost everyone else doesn't, Imperial measurement is still used despite attempts by the government and EU and like the Monarchy these things are ours, it may not be logical but damn it when does being British mean being 100% logical, were not robots but human being and sometimes cold hard facts are not enough, and its this reason the Monarchy will be here to stay.
Also a more logical line of reasoning, if you do replace the Monarch with a president won't the costs still be the same? Because you'll still have to pay them, their staff, their expenses, the upkeep of there presidential palace or whatever. So the cost will still be the same, except we'd just be paying for some scumbag politician (granted not all politicians are bad but the overwhelming majority are).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the last time a monarch refused to sign a law was the Scottish militia act in 1708, and even then that was on the advice of her ministers.
Lord Bingo wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the last time a monarch refused to sign a law was the Scottish militia act in 1708, and even then that was on the advice of her ministers.
The last time a law got that far despite the monarch's powerful lobbying powers.
91 on Sunday I heard, he still looks good so I hope it doesn't develop into something like pneumonia. That old geezer is always a hoot...plus Charles is a tit.
AustonT wrote:91 on Sunday I heard, he still looks good so I hope it doesn't develop into something like pneumonia. That old geezer is always a hoot...plus Charles is a tit.
Did you hear his latest one?
There was an old disabled lady in a foil blanket, oh here is a quote from a paper.
Philip asked elderly Barbara Dubery as she kept warm in a foil blanket: “Are they going to put you in the oven next?”
AustonT wrote:91 on Sunday I heard, he still looks good so I hope it doesn't develop into something like pneumonia. That old geezer is always a hoot...plus Charles is a tit.
Did you hear his latest one?
There was an old disabled lady in a foil blanket, oh here is a quote from a paper.
Philip asked elderly Barbara Dubery as she kept warm in a foil blanket: “Are they going to put you in the oven next?”
Her daughter Pam said: “It made my day.”
Can you imagine the outrage if she had been Jewish?
He IS a fething genious I love what he does during the Queen's speech. He looks like he wants to murder EVERY MP in the Government. (He probably does)
dæl wrote:
Royals do have power, a lot more than people realise, they pass all laws, and what they ask for in return is always done behind closed doors. Do you not think it funny that we are protecting the non native royal favourite pheasant by destroying the indigenous buzzard?
So being accountable and wanting people's approval is bad, but reacting to bad press is good?
Slavery worked for hundreds of years too. (btw they aren't comparable, but I'm just proving somethings long standing existence doesn't make it morally justifiable).
You don't perchance have a silver foil hat?
The Queen has no power whatsoever when it comes to laws. If the government wanted to add a new law they don't need her, it's all down to tradition. If she said no it migt send ripples through the establishment but at the end of the day there is bugger all that she can do. Modern business holds more money & power than the royal family does, don't forget that back in the day it was the rest of the Nobles that held the real power. As I understand it in some some circles the royal family is looked down upon.
You miss the point about being accountable. Anybody elected into the role of head of state would be jumping left right and centre at every bad press report, trying to please evrybody so they can get in next time. The royals have been able to ignore and be above any bad press, because most of the time it's been a flash in the pan and goes away. Just imagine what it would be like if they responded to half the stuff printed about Harry, it would just feed the fire. I think you will find that senior royals have been quietly brought to heel by The Queen when it really matters. Even she realised that the death of Diana was something that dealt with in a more public fashion.
As to the pheasents, more likely to be down to the money made by the upper classes going out shooting or the wannabes
dæl wrote:Who needs democracy eh? I mean royalty are selected by God and who are we mere mortals to argue. And it's not like the hereditary peers of the lords made their fortunes in unsavoury manners all those centuries ago. So yeah, they're good, and lets add a few that give money to fund political parties campaigns, we need them in the House of Lords too.
Did I say anything about not having democracy? My point was if you have elected members of the Upper House, how will it work? Who votes for them? How do you choose which parties can have representatives? In theory you could end up with a House full of BNP members. How do you stop it becoming an extension of the House of Commons? As I already mentioned, if party A gets a majority, where are the checks and balances if they then also get a majority in the Upper House?
Technically the Queen does have to okay all laws... She's just not allowed to say no... The royalty holds no real power though. Getting angry about it is silly...
Wolfstan wrote:
You don't perchance have a silver foil hat?
I have several, they each block out different frequencies, have to wear different ones depending on who's listening into my brain.
Wolfstan wrote:The Queen has no power whatsoever when it comes to laws. If the government wanted to add a new law they don't need her, it's all down to tradition.
So who can ratify laws in her place? Or dissolve parliament? Or release the army?
Wolfstan wrote:Did I say anything about not having democracy?
Yes. You advocated a monarchy, and a second unelected chamber, both pretty undemocratic.
The way in which the Lords will be elected will have to be different from the Commons, they don't have constituencies for a start. I don't know how it will be done, but there is little chance of it being full of BNP considering they are nowhere in the Commons.
azazel the cat wrote:I hope that you are not attempting to sidestep the fact that the consitution is in its essence a form of contract, and you, being a contract lawyer of sorts, managed to quote a portion of said contract whilst failing to understand its meaning.
I understand it completely. I just recognize that the court isn't going to do anything about it. Without enforcement the provision is meaningless.
Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.
biccat wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:I would be unsure of the skill level of any tort lawyer who appears to be unable to properly read a contract.
I wouldn't. Tort lawyers generally don't do contracts.
Then what do they do? 'Cause contract disputes (which includes divorces) makes up the bulk of civil proceedings. At least in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that personal injury/damage cases clog up the court system in your neck of the woods, though.
biccat wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:And last I heard, the interpretation of the wording of your constitution was not considered to be non-justiciable. But what do I know? I'm Canadian, eh?
Then you don't understand the political question doctrine. Then again, most Americans don't either.
Pretty sure I've got at least a solid grasp on it. And I'm pretty sure that much like any case that involves your constitution, it is open to judicial interpretation, irrespective of political ramifications. I doubt the courts would rule and say that "Person A is eligible/ineligible for the office of the president", but if an elected person were to be denied office due to that clause and took the issue to court, then I am quite certain that a ruling would be generated on the legality of the denial.
EDIT: Maybe we should cease the hijacking of this thread, and let the Brits have their little party for their octagenarian taskmaster?
azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.
I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.
azazel the cat wrote:Then what do they do? 'Cause contract disputes (which includes divorces) makes up the bulk of civil proceedings. At least in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that personal injury/damage cases clog up the court system in your neck of the woods, though.
Torts attorneys deal with torts. That's why they're called "torts attorneys."
azazel the cat wrote:Pretty sure I've got at least a solid grasp on it. And I'm pretty sure that much like any case that involves your constitution, it is open to judicial interpretation, irrespective of political ramifications. I doubt the courts would rule and say that "Person A is eligible/ineligible for the office of the president", but if an elected person were to be denied office due to that clause and took the issue to court, then I am quite certain that a ruling would be generated on the legality of the denial.
No, that's not the rule. Basically, the political question doctrine is the Court saying that it's not going to get involved in issues reserved for the political branches (executive and legislative). This is one of them.
azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.
I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.
But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.
azazel the cat wrote:Pretty sure I've got at least a solid grasp on it. And I'm pretty sure that much like any case that involves your constitution, it is open to judicial interpretation, irrespective of political ramifications. I doubt the courts would rule and say that "Person A is eligible/ineligible for the office of the president", but if an elected person were to be denied office due to that clause and took the issue to court, then I am quite certain that a ruling would be generated on the legality of the denial.
biccat wrote:No, that's not the rule. Basically, the political question doctrine is the Court saying that it's not going to get involved in issues reserved for the political branches (executive and legislative). This is one of them.
Isn't that what I said (perhaps poorly phrased)?
EDIT: Dammit! I said I wasn't gonna post in this thread anymore. Now I'm definitely done here.
Medium of Death wrote:Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?
The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.
Having watched some of the parade, I do have a question. Are the shakos of the Queen's Guard still bearskin? I remember hearing some sort of hubbub about it, then nothing...
treadhead1944 wrote:Having watched some of the parade, I do have a question. Are the shakos of the Queen's Guard still bearskin? I remember hearing some sort of hubbub about it, then nothing...
Medium of Death wrote:Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?
The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.
Whether he has done or would is another thing though.
It's probable that if he did veto it Parliament would simply pass a law saying he can't and then pass the law he veto-ed in the first place.
Medium of Death wrote:Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?
The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.
Whether he has done or would is another thing though.
It's probable that if he did veto it Parliament would simply pass a law saying he can't and then pass the law he veto-ed in the first place.
The Queen wouldn't ratify a law removing her last vestige of power, and therefore give Parliament the power to make and pass laws without her.
The point is we don't know what goes on behind closed doors, it's the same as those dinners with Cameron.
azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.
I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.
But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.
AustonT wrote:
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.
I am reminded of the "not born of woman" bit from Macbeth. Does this mean if you were a Caesarean you can't be President?
AustonT wrote:
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.
I am reminded of the "not born of woman" bit from Macbeth. Does this mean if you were a Caesarean you can't be President?
dæl wrote:The Queen wouldn't ratify a law removing her last vestige of power, and therefore give Parliament the power to make and pass laws without her.
She wouldn't have a choice the Royal Prerogative(s) can be removed by Parliament at any time Parliament chooses.
azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.
I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.
But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.
Uh... would you care to give me an example of how a natural-born US citizen can be born outside of the US?
azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.
I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.
But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.
Uh... would you care to give me an example of how a natural-born US citizen can be born outside of the US?
EDIT: But that doesn't mean you're wrong.
Sure.
Should a woman who is a US citizen currently residing in the US become pregnant and give birth on a busines trip abroad or something that child born in, lets say Bali; is a US citizen.
Expressly mentioned in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and upheld by the Supreme Court, though replaced with different verbiage later.
the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens
azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.
I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.
But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.
Uh... would you care to give me an example of how a natural-born US citizen can be born outside of the US?
EDIT: But that doesn't mean you're wrong.
Sure.
Should a woman who is a US citizen currently residing in the US become pregnant and give birth on a busines trip abroad or something that child born in, lets say Bali; is a US citizen.
Expressly mentioned in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and upheld by the Supreme Court, though replaced with different verbiage later.
the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens
Or a child born to a member of the US Military who is posted overseas
Don't worry chum, everyone wishes they were British. The ones that say they don't; really want it but are lying to themselves.
Fortunately despite being surround by water we have notoriously porous borders, generous benefits and useless immigration officials, so come and see the Queen and stay a while.
But if you don't mind waiting it is only a matter of time before the Queen decides it is time to regain the Empire by unleasing the Corgi Corps on an unsuspecting world...
I had a lovely time at the Jubilee. Watched the pageant from Parliament - the atmosphere was awesome, and the barge carrying HM looked pretty spectacular in the flesh.
I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.
Albatross wrote:
I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.
But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.
On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check
Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.
On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check
Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.
There is a significant difference between the UK and some gakhole dictatorship - a few million in the UK is an insignificant drop in the ocean to celebrate a tradition of rule which stretches back hundreds of years and hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies at the expense of everyone else living in absolute poverty being and brutally repressed and/or killed on a whim...
Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.
On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check
Can you clarify this point?
All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?
Bongo_clive wrote:
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.
Can you clarify this point?
All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?
That's hardly blind, devoted fanaticism...
It rains all the time so that's no exactly a factor...
And she's done a fair amount of good (Charities and such) but also it's about her status as a symbol not just for the UK but for the entire commonwealth...
And it was quite a nice show...
Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.
There is a significant difference between the UK and some gakhole dictatorship - a few million in the UK is an insignificant drop in the ocean to celebrate a tradition of rule which stretches back hundreds of years and hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies at the expense of everyone else living in absolute poverty being and brutally repressed and/or killed on a whim...
The Royal family don't need to dip their hands in, we GIVE them loads of money, but even so, Prince Andrew is just one example of sucking every ounce of privilege out of a position. And they've been doing it as long as they've been around.
Plenty of people live in absolute poverty in Britain.
And with the new laws of detention without charge, plenty of people are being repressed. Do you think they'd let you hold a demonstration anywhere along that route last weekend?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Bongo_clive wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Bongo_clive wrote:
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.
Can you clarify this point?
All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?
That's hardly blind, devoted fanaticism...
It rains all the time so that's no exactly a factor...
And she's done a fair amount of good (Charities and such) but also it's about her status as a symbol not just for the UK but for the entire commonwealth...
And it was quite a nice show...
Nelson old boy, her and her family have taken out a lot more than they've put in.
But then I'm Welsh, and that's probably where our view points are going to diverge
Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.
There is a significant difference between the UK and some gakhole dictatorship - a few million in the UK is an insignificant drop in the ocean to celebrate a tradition of rule which stretches back hundreds of years and hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies at the expense of everyone else living in absolute poverty being and brutally repressed and/or killed on a whim...
The Royal family don't need to dip their hands in, we GIVE them loads of money, but even so, Prince Andrew is just one example of sucking every ounce of privilege out of a position. And they've been doing it as long as they've been around.
Plenty of people live in absolute poverty in Britain.
And with the new laws of detention without charge, plenty of people are being repressed. Do you think they'd let you hold a demonstration anywhere along that route last weekend?
You're comparing a relative minority of people living in poverty to the massive famines and homelessness of 3rd world countries?
You're also comparing holding without charge (Admittedly quite bad) and not being able to hold a demonstration because something else was going on at the time to the active and brutal repression of people in, lets say China?
That's hardly the same thing, Matty has already addressed the issue concerning giving the royal family money. The amount they bring in for the tourist trade makes what they are given seem like nothing .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bongo_clive wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Bongo_clive wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Bongo_clive wrote:
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.
Can you clarify this point?
All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?
That's hardly blind, devoted fanaticism...
It rains all the time so that's no exactly a factor...
And she's done a fair amount of good (Charities and such) but also it's about her status as a symbol not just for the UK but for the entire commonwealth...
And it was quite a nice show...
Nelson old boy, her and her family have taken out a lot more than they've put in.
But then I'm Welsh, and that's probably where our view points are going to diverge
See previous posts about what they put in.
Being Welsh has nothing to do with it, it's hardly a Welsh national trait to dislike the royal family.
purplefood wrote:That's hardly the same thing, Matty has already addressed the issue concerning giving the royal family money. The amount they bring in for the tourist trade makes what they are given seem like nothing.
Oh why do I bother...
English Assassin wrote:
mattyrm wrote:I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?
Buckingham Palace visitor figures: 600,000 per annum. Cost of entry: £18 (I shall generously assume every visitor is an adult paying the full price.). Corporation tax rate: 24%.
Result: (600,000 x £18)/24 = £2,592,000. That's about less than a tenth of your estimate, even presuming that Buck House deducts absolutely no expenses from its profits. In practice, the figure will be vastly lower even than that, once the costs of commercial staff, advertising, insurance, security and business expenses have been deducted. So remind me: who must have flunked maths?
I also presume that you have never been to Paris. If you had, you might have noticed that Versailles is still quite the draw for tourists (2.5 million visitors per annum) despite no king having been in residence since 1789...
purplefood wrote:That's hardly the same thing, Matty has already addressed the issue concerning giving the royal family money. The amount they bring in for the tourist trade makes what they are given seem like nothing.
Oh why do I bother...
English Assassin wrote:
mattyrm wrote:I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?
Buckingham Palace visitor figures: 600,000 per annum. Cost of entry: £18 (I shall generously assume every visitor is an adult paying the full price.). Corporation tax rate: 24%.
Result: (600,000 x £18)/24 = £2,592,000. That's about less than a tenth of your estimate, even presuming that Buck House deducts absolutely no expenses from its profits. In practice, the figure will be vastly lower even than that, once the costs of commercial staff, advertising, insurance, security and business expenses have been deducted. So remind me: who must have flunked maths?
I also presume that you have never been to Paris. If you had, you might have noticed that Versailles is still quite the draw for tourists (2.5 million visitors per annum) despite no king having been in residence since 1789...
You might notice that people do more than just visit buckingham palace...
Food, drink, travel, stay...
It adds up eventually.
purplefood wrote:You might notice that people do more than just visit buckingham palace... Food, drink, travel, stay... It adds up eventually.
For that argument to be valid, you would have to assume that tourists only visited London to see Buck House. Considering both the example of Versailles and the following 2011 visitor figures, that is unlikely:
SOURCE: AVLA British Museum 5,842,138 Tate Modern 5,061,172 National Gallery 4,954,914 Natural History Museum 4,647,613 Science Museum (South Kensington) 2,751,902 V&A (South Kensington) 2,629,065 National Maritime Museum 2,419,802 Tower of London 2,414,541 St Paul’s Cathedral 1,892,467 National Portrait Gallery 1,819,442 Tate Britain 1,665,291 British Library 1,454,612 Westminster Abbey 1,394,427 Old Royal Naval College Greenwich 1,274,957
At 600,000 per annum, Buck House is only on a level with the National Railway Museum, York, Edinburgh Botanic Gardens or the Glasgow Gallery of Modern Art as a tourist destination.
Medium of Death wrote:Edit: I'm a moron, you were calculating how much she gave the economy not how much was generated after tax
I should have written it as (600,000 x £18)*0.24 = £2,592,000, but yes, it's tax revenue to the treasury that's the question. And as I said, though Buck House's expenses are not made available to the public, they would be considerable, and would likely reduce their profits (and thus their tax bill) to vastly less than the quoted figure. (10 - 20% pre-tax profitability seems to be the standard for cultural attractions run on a commercial basis in the UK.)
SilverMK2 wrote: hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies
See the link I posted earlier in the thread about them using charity money earmarked for schools and those in poverty to pay to heat buckingham palace.
purplefood wrote:You're comparing a relative minority of people living in poverty to the massive famines and homelessness of 3rd world countries? You're also comparing holding without charge (Admittedly quite bad) and not being able to hold a demonstration because something else was going on at the time to the active and brutal repression of people in, lets say China?
There are millions in the UK living in poverty, 10% of the population cannot afford to heat their house. Holding someone without charge would not have happened if we had an actual tangible constitution. And yes, not being allowed to protest anywhere at any time without police permission is repression, as is arresting people for pre-crime which they did before he royal wedding. It may not be on par with China, but is that the point we have to reach before people realise their rights have been eroded?
A funny, ironic twist, is that it is the unelected, hereditary Lords that stiopped that detention without charge going any further. If Blair and his creepy cronies had their way, they'd have banged you up for 60, or even 90 days without charge. Lords quickly put a stop to that!!
And this is why I do like the idea of a constitutional monarchy, keeps everyone in check.
As to the Welsh thing, I think you'll find we never asked to have a King/Queen of England as our head of state, and unlike the Scottish, we've never had our royal family incorporated into the royal line. the Queen means nothing to most Welsh, it's why we don't sing God Save The Queen, and why we consider ourself the oldest colony in the Commonwealth
Bongo_clive wrote:A funny, ironic twist, is that it is the unelected, hereditary Lords that stiopped that detention without charge going any further. If Blair and his creepy cronies had their way, they'd have banged you up for 60, or even 90 days without charge. Lords quickly put a stop to that!!
The majority of Lords aren't hereditary anymore, only 92 of the 786 are. And you'll note Warsi has just been caught with her hand in the till, a woman who has never won an election because she is an insufferable homophobe.
Albatross wrote:
I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.
It's not often I agree with Albatross, and this time it's like he sees the future.
Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.
On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check
I am proudly Welsh, and happy to have a monarch such as the Queen. My dad and his brothers are from the Rhondda valley, and they happily celebrated the Jubilee, as did friends and family back in Porth and Cardiff.
On saying that I sorta have to agree with the fella in this one, Steve Jones, on the extended family, not so sure why we put anything towards them. Welsh Jubilee - Express
Although I think (not sure tbh) that the lesser royals, cousins and like no longer get anything from the state anyway?
SilverMK2 wrote: hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies
See the link I posted earlier in the thread about them using charity money earmarked for schools and those in poverty to pay to heat buckingham palace.
purplefood wrote:You're comparing a relative minority of people living in poverty to the massive famines and homelessness of 3rd world countries?
You're also comparing holding without charge (Admittedly quite bad) and not being able to hold a demonstration because something else was going on at the time to the active and brutal repression of people in, lets say China?
There are millions in the UK living in poverty, 10% of the population cannot afford to heat their house.
Holding someone without charge would not have happened if we had an actual tangible constitution.
And yes, not being allowed to protest anywhere at any time without police permission is repression, as is arresting people for pre-crime which they did before he royal wedding. It may not be on par with China, but is that the point we have to reach before people realise their rights have been eroded?
America have a written Constitution yet they hold people indefinitely without charge at Guantanamo bay, to be honest if its not broke don't fix it, the unwritten Constitution is working well enough as it is. And even if we did have one, who would write it? That reason alone is enough to warrant the stay with the current system.
Albatross wrote:I had a lovely time at the Jubilee. Watched the pageant from Parliament - the atmosphere was awesome, and the barge carrying HM looked pretty spectacular in the flesh.
I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.
Long Live the Queen.
Are you actually serious? You think the problem people have with living in an undemocratic society is that you seem to be enjoying it a bit too much and they want to put a stop to that?
dael wrote:
And yes, not being allowed to protest anywhere at any time without police permission is repression, as is arresting people for pre-crime which they did before he royal wedding. It may not be on par with China, but is that the point we have to reach before people realise their rights have been eroded?
Eroded? Isn't any of that a big step up from the past century or so?
Lord Bingo wrote:
America have a written Constitution yet they hold people indefinitely without charge at Guantanamo bay, to be honest if its not broke don't fix it, the unwritten Constitution is working well enough as it is. And even if we did have one, who would write it? That reason alone is enough to warrant the stay with the current system.
You will note Guantanamo Bay is not in America. As to its writing, the constitution would need to be written up and then put to a series of referenda, as the European one was supposed to.
Hazardous Harry wrote:
dael wrote:
And yes, not being allowed to protest anywhere at any time without police permission is repression, as is arresting people for pre-crime which they did before he royal wedding. It may not be on par with China, but is that the point we have to reach before people realise their rights have been eroded?
Eroded? Isn't any of that a big step up from the past century or so?
Don't get your meaning. Britain became a more just society from 1900-2000, it's since then that things have gone to gak.
dael, face it you are in a minority, I don't think much of polls, as they are extremely limited in their view, so I'd ignore both the one you noted, and the one more reccent that ripped it up.
The facts are, all over the country millions of Brits celebrated the weekend, and if a vote ever came up, which I seriously cannot see happening in any of our lifetimes, the silent majority will crush the Republican dream so badly it won't come up again for decades.
As I noted earlier in the thread, which I also noted none of the republicans in this thread responded to. If the Australian Republicans couldn't get Australia (who lets face it, could harvest a profitable industy for disliking the English) to drop the Monarchy, what cat in hells chance do the minoirty of British Republicans have?
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:dael, face it you are in a minority, I don't think much of polls, as they are extremely limited in their view, so I'd ignore both the one you noted, and the one more reccent that ripped it up.
The facts are, all over the country millions of Brits celebrated the weekend, and if a vote ever came up, which I seriously cannot see happening in any of our lifetimes, the silent majority will crush the Republican dream so badly it won't come up again for decades.
I am in the minority currently, but that doesn't mean I am automatically in the wrong morally, I'm probably in the minority about not wanting to bring back hanging too, and I'm definitely in the minority about bringing in proportional representation.
As I've said, I'm all for Liz seeing out her time, but then I want a vote put to the people as to whether we want Charles as our head of state or someone with an actual mandate beyond being chosen by God, then we will see, because as with the AV vote it will come down to how each side puts their case forward.
Albatross wrote:I had a lovely time at the Jubilee. Watched the pageant from Parliament - the atmosphere was awesome, and the barge carrying HM looked pretty spectacular in the flesh.
I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.
Long Live the Queen.
Are you actually serious? You think the problem people have with living in an undemocratic society is that you seem to be enjoying it a bit too much and they want to put a stop to that?
We DO live in a free society, he is bang on the money! Sure its not without flaws, is any nation on earth? Norway is a nice place to live, Sweden is a nice place to live, is France better than both in every respect because they aren't struggling under the iron heel of tyrany?
Your side have a tiny fraction of the support, YOUR the minority. The vast majority of the British public are aware that they are free and happy and enjoyed themselves last weekend.
Seriously.."Living in an undemocratic society" ....
There are places in the world that are filled with tyranny and death and repression and suffering, places where women aren't allowed to read, albinos are killed in rituals, homosexuals are stoned to death and rape is commonplace, but over here gay men walk the streets hand in hand freely, Religion has little sway in politics, women can dress how they like and say what they wish... The hungry are fed, the homeless are housed, and the sick are treated...
But we live in an undemocratic society because a few million smiling people enjoyed themselves last weekend!
dæl wrote:or someone with an actual mandate beyond being chosen by God
Well, since there is no god, I'm happy keeping with the tradition of allowing whatever royal is next in line to park their bum on the throne and carry on waving and smiling at official functions.
as with the AV vote it will come down to how each side puts their case forward.
AV was crushed because it is a pointless, expensive waste of time
One point, no they aren't. Well 900,000 of them aren't anyway, which is kind of disgusting while 1,000,000 houses are empty.
As I've said though, I don't doubt we a relatively free country, just that we are not a democratic one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
as with the AV vote it will come down to how each side puts their case forward.
AV was crushed because it is a pointless, expensive waste of time
AV was crushed because it wasn't what was needed, PR was. And people got stupidly partisan about the whole issue, you asked them how they were voting on it and they said "Tory" or "Liberal"
dæl wrote:
One point, no they aren't. Well 900,000 of them aren't anyway, which is kind of disgusting while 1,000,000 houses are empty.
However, those 1m homes are owned by someone, meaning you can't just seize them to put the homeless in them.
AV was crushed because it wasn't what was needed, PR was. And people got stupidly partisan about the whole issue, you asked them how they were voting on it and they said "Tory" or "Liberal"
Quite aside from party politics, why was AV even put forwards if PR would somehow magically fix politics forever? The party lines formed because AV was pretty much the only pledge the lib dems had not pooped all over, one that few people wanted or cared about and one that would only benefit the lib dems.
dæl wrote:
One point, no they aren't. Well 900,000 of them aren't anyway, which is kind of disgusting while 1,000,000 houses are empty.
However, those 1m homes are owned by someone, meaning you can't just seize them to put the homeless in them.
So we'll just let nigh on a million people sleep rough and not bring in any legislation taxing second and third homes. And until recently you could seize them, it was called squatting and within the boundries of the place must not be in use and you weren't allowed to damage anything it was legal.
AV was crushed because it wasn't what was needed, PR was. And people got stupidly partisan about the whole issue, you asked them how they were voting on it and they said "Tory" or "Liberal"
Quite aside from party politics, why was AV even put forwards if PR would somehow magically fix politics forever? The party lines formed because AV was pretty much the only pledge the lib dems had not pooped all over, one that few people wanted or cared about and one that would only benefit the lib dems.
No it benefits voters that live in safe seats they vote against, you realise that, as has happened a few times, you can get well over 50% of the vote and no get even close to a majority in Parliament?
One point, no they aren't. Well 900,000 of them aren't anyway, which is kind of disgusting while 1,000,000 houses are empty.
As I've said though, I don't doubt we a relatively free country, just that we are not a democratic one.
I know literally nothing about the homeless and housing situation in the UK and this sound like total bull gak.
I doubt that 1 out of every 60 people is homeless; I doubt the UK makes up 1/3 of the 3 million homeless in Europe. Especially when published figures ( I just looked) say that 4 in every 1000 or 1 in 250 are homeless in the UK. Or did the Queen manipulate those figures?
One point, no they aren't. Well 900,000 of them aren't anyway, which is kind of disgusting while 1,000,000 houses are empty.
As I've said though, I don't doubt we a relatively free country, just that we are not a democratic one.
I know literally nothing about the homeless and housing situation in the UK and this sound like total bull gak.
I doubt that 1 out of every 60 people is homeless; I doubt the UK makes up 1/3 of the 3 million homeless in Europe. Especially when published figures ( I just looked) say that 4 in every 1000 or 1 in 250 are homeless in the UK. Or did the Queen manipulate those figures?
You probably looked at stats for those sleeping rough, technically homeless i.e sofa surfing/in temporary accomodation is a massive number and is rising heavily with cuts to housing benefit.
In fact that can't be the stats for sleeping rough, as that is under a 1000 overall.
EDIT: Things have changed since I worked for a homeless charity. There were on one night last year 2,181 rough sleepers in England alone. As well as in three months last year 11,820 applications to be declared homeless. There are an estimated 930,000 empty homes in the uk.
dæl wrote:
Britain became a more just society from 1900-2000, it's since then that things have gone to gak.
Are you absolutely sure you aren't looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses?
Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State, which is now being demolished. Set up the NHS, which is now being demolished. Signed into the European Code of Human Rights, which is now ignored at every available opportunity, and talked of like its a ball and chain around our leg. Closed down the workhouses, which with Workfare are effectively being reopened. Set up publicly funded schools, which are now turning into privately funded academies. Gave people the right to protest, which now has to be signed off by the police.
One point, no they aren't. Well 900,000 of them aren't anyway, which is kind of disgusting while 1,000,000 houses are empty.
As I've said though, I don't doubt we a relatively free country, just that we are not a democratic one.
I know literally nothing about the homeless and housing situation in the UK and this sound like total bull gak.
I doubt that 1 out of every 60 people is homeless; I doubt the UK makes up 1/3 of the 3 million homeless in Europe. Especially when published figures ( I just looked) say that 4 in every 1000 or 1 in 250 are homeless in the UK. Or did the Queen manipulate those figures?
You probably looked at stats for those sleeping rough, technically homeless i.e sofa surfing/in temporary accomodation is a massive number and is rising heavily with cuts to housing benefit.
In fact that can't be the stats for sleeping rough, as that is under a 1000 overall.
EDIT: Things have changed since I worked for a homeless charity. There were on one night last year 2,181 rough sleepers in England alone. As well as in three months last year 11,820 applications to be declared homeless. There are an estimated 930,000 empty homes in the uk.
Right none of which addresses what I said; that I doubt there are nearly a million homeless in the UK. In fact all you did was restate every OTHER point, which does nothing at all to answer the criticism posed which is quite simply: Prove that there is even approaching 900,000 homeless.
The US has nearly three times the population of the UK and estimates 750,000 homeless. We have unarguably a less comprehensive response to homelessness than the UK. How is it then that the UK has a homeless rate almost double what the US has?
AustonT wrote:
Right none of which addresses what I said; that I doubt there are nearly a million homeless in the UK. In fact all you did was restate every OTHER point, which does nothing at all to answer the criticism posed which is quite simply: Prove that there is even approaching 900,000 homeless.
The US has nearly three times the population of the UK and estimates 750,000 homeless. We have unarguably a less comprehensive response to homelessness than the UK. How is it then that the UK has a homeless rate almost double what the US has?
I can't find statistics on overall homeless, only new applications for registry as. The difference between the States and the UK is that housing over there is much more affordable. Have you had politicians telling nurses and teachers to move out of new york because their wages don't cover their rent without having to be topped up by the state? And then after allowing such a state of affairs cut of said state support? It is possibly because you guys have a less comprehensive response that has kept rents affordable, as over here landlords are making an absolute killing off of the government effectively subsidising them.
Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State, which is now being demolished. Set up the NHS, which is now being demolished. Signed into the European Code of Human Rights, which is now ignored at every available opportunity, and talked of like its a ball and chain around our leg....
Like it wasn't ignored when it was inconvenient before?
Closed down the workhouses, which with Workfare are effectively being reopened. Set up publicly funded schools, which are now turning into privately funded academies. Gave people the right to protest, which now has to be signed off by the police.
AustonT wrote:
Right none of which addresses what I said; that I doubt there are nearly a million homeless in the UK. In fact all you did was restate every OTHER point, which does nothing at all to answer the criticism posed which is quite simply: Prove that there is even approaching 900,000 homeless.
The US has nearly three times the population of the UK and estimates 750,000 homeless. We have unarguably a less comprehensive response to homelessness than the UK. How is it then that the UK has a homeless rate almost double what the US has?
I can't find statistics on overall homeless, only new applications for registry as. The difference between the States and the UK is that housing over there is much more affordable. Have you had politicians telling nurses and teachers to move out of new york because their wages don't cover their rent without having to be topped up by the state? And then after allowing such a state of affairs cut of said state support? It is possibly because you guys have a less comprehensive response that has kept rents affordable, as over here landlords are making an absolute killing off of the government effectively subsidising them.
Evade,evade, evade! Homeless people. Numbers. Put up or shut up.
dæl wrote:
mattyrm wrote: the homeless are housed
No they aren't. Well 900,000 of them aren't anyway
Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State, which is now being demolished. Set up the NHS, which is now being demolished. Signed into the European Code of Human Rights, which is now ignored at every available opportunity, and talked of like its a ball and chain around our leg....
Like it wasn't ignored when it was inconvenient before?
Maybe, but it was seen as a good thing
Closed down the workhouses, which with Workfare are effectively being reopened. Set up publicly funded schools, which are now turning into privately funded academies. Gave people the right to protest, which now has to be signed off by the police.
Yes, but we weren't turning every State school into one.
You also shot protesters, en masse as well.
Yes, which we stopped doing as the century went on, whats your point? Because mine was we became better over 1900-2000, then got worse, which is what has happened, saying we shot protesters doesn't really wash unless we were doing it up until 1999 which we weren't.
dæl wrote:Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State
Hate it. Costs us a fortune, makes people addicted to wellfare, fat chavs who never work from cradle to grave.
dæl wrote:Signed into the European Code of Human Rights
Hate it, also known as the criminals charter. Costs us a fortune and Abu Quatda, Abu Hamza, rapists, nonces and lunatics use it as a get out of jail free card.
dæl wrote:Gave people the right to protest, which now has to be signed off by the police.
So yeah, my point stands.
Eh?! You CAN protest! Your just making gak up. Go outside and do one, see what happens. I seem to remember a million hippies marching through London before we invaded Iraq. They didn't wind up in Gitmo.
And good riddance to the other two.. what's so bloody wonderful about the ECHR? The amount of tales ive read about thanks to that thing that has boiled my piss over the last decade.. It needs serious reform considering its primary use is to care for the criminal and not the victim. I would be happier if we fethed it off altogether and made our own that made some semblance of sense.
dæl wrote:Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State
Hate it. Costs us a fortune, makes people addicted to wellfare, fat chavs who never work from cradle to grave.
Also provides for people with severe disabilities, I'm not saying our current system is perfect, I'm saying the idea of providing for those that cannot (not will not) provide for themselves is the right thing to do
mattyrm wrote:
dæl wrote:Signed into the European Code of Human Rights
Hate it, also known as the criminals charter. Costs us a fortune and Abu Quatda, Abu Hamza, rapists, nonces and lunatics use it as a get out of jail free card.
Show me which article says you can preach hate, or rape people. I'll give you a clue, it doesn't say that anywhere.
mattyrm wrote:
dæl wrote:Gave people the right to protest, which now has to be signed off by the police.
So yeah, my point stands.
Eh?! You CAN protest! Your just making gak up. Go outside and do one, see what happens. I seem to remember a million hippies marching through London before we invaded Iraq. They didn't wind up in Gitmo.
Iraq march was before the terrorism and anti social bills, so you didn't need permission.
mattyrm wrote:And good riddance to the other two.. what's so bloody wonderful about the ECHR? The amount of tales ive read about thanks to that thing that has boiled my piss over the last decade.. It needs serious reform considering its primary use is to care for the criminal and not the victim. I would be happier if we fethed it off altogether and made our own that made some semblance of sense.
No, it does not distinguish between criminal and victim, it is a code of human rights, which are for everyone. Name three cases where its been used for ill then(and not allowing us to send people to their death doesn't count).
I am proudly Welsh, and happy to have a monarch such as the Queen.
My dad and his brothers are from the Rhondda valley, and they are happily celebrated the Jubilee, as did friends and family back in Porth and Cardiff.
The English have done nothing but loot Wales for 1000 years, and you celebrate the fact? Her ancestors slaughtered ours, and you celebrate it? They did everything they could to wipe out the Welsh language, and you celebrate them? They tried to tear the heart and soul out of Wales, and you wave a flag in joy? Strange.
And before you harp on about ancient history, the language was almost illegal only a few decades ago, that bitch Thatcher closed the mines in the 80's, and homes are still being bought by the English for holidays, pricing locals out of the market. Anne Robinson can get up on TV and racially slur the entire country and get a slap on the wrist?
But this does tie in nicely to my previous point, why on earth people feel the need to celebrate quite so vigorously the life of someone who did nothing to get there. She was just born.
I am not questioning your sense of pride, that is a very subjective term, but I am questioning your grasp on history and politics.
I will leave you with the words of Phil Bennett circa 1977
"Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and only live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, raped, controlled and punished by the English – and that's who you are playing this afternoon."
dæl wrote:Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State
Hate it. Costs us a fortune, makes people addicted to wellfare, fat chavs who never work from cradle to grave.
You wouldn't argue there is some need for a welfare state Matty? Yes it is badly organised at the moment, and I think the social problems run deeper with a growing underclass that bottom-feeds off the state, but having lived in countries with no welfare state (and especially health system) I'm glad we have it. The press never focuses on it, but there are genuine circumstances when people need that safety net.
Incidentally (and I'm not sure whether this is worthy of a new thread) but who do people think should be the next Monarch when the old dear pops her clogs? I read somewhere that Charles has only about 30% in favour of him becoming King, and from a few Royal 'insiders' who reckoned that the next 100 years of the Monarch would be assured with a younger and more popular King like William (should the royal line skip a generation and Charles abdicate?)
Personally I would be in favour of the latter, far too many "I hope I can be re-incarnated as your tampon"-type comments from Charles, and I'm not sure if anyone of my generation will ever forgive him for the way he carried on with Diana. But, what do people feel about this?
dæl wrote:Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State
Hate it. Costs us a fortune, makes people addicted to wellfare, fat chavs who never work from cradle to grave.
You wouldn't argue there is some need for a welfare state Matty? Yes it is badly organised at the moment, and I think the social problems run deeper with a growing underclass that bottom-feeds off the state, but having lived in countries with no welfare state (and especially health system) I'm glad we have it. The press never focuses on it, but there are genuine circumstances when people need that safety net.
Incidentally (and I'm not sure whether this is worthy of a new thread) but who do people think should be the next Monarch when the old dear pops her clogs? I read somewhere that Charles has only about 30% in favour of him becoming King, and from a few Royal 'insiders' who reckoned that the next 100 years of the Monarch would be assured with a younger and more popular King like William (should the royal line skip a generation and Charles abdicate?)
Personally I would be in favour of the latter, far too many "I hope I can be re-incarnated as your tampon"-type comments from Charles, and I'm not sure if anyone of my generation will ever forgive him for the way he carried on with Diana. But, what do people feel about this?
What the hell is the point of a monarchy if e can just choose who should be king? That's called a President
You know that 13,000 years ago one of your ancestors killed one of mine and stole his cave! Now I am afraid that I am going to have to hate you forever!
The miners unions did more than their fair share to get the mines closed and to pretend otherwise is the worst example of head in the sand I've come across in a while.
As for the language? Languages die all the time. Most of the languages in england have died out completely. If you want to preserve Welsh, no one is stopping you. Hell, we subsidise the Welsh and the Scots in their hatred of the English so knock yourselves out forcing children to learn a pointless dead language spoken nowhere other than wales (and from what I understand in part of South America where more people spoke it at one time than in Wales).
We're all very sorry that X years ago Y happened. Now let's all move on with our lives.
Bongo_clive wrote:
The English have done nothing but loot Wales for 1000 years, and you celebrate the fact? Her ancestors slaughtered ours, and you celebrate it? They did everything they could to wipe out the Welsh language, and you celebrate them? They tried to tear the heart and soul out of Wales, and you wave a flag in joy? Strange.
And before you harp on about ancient history, the language was almost illegal only a few decades ago, that bitch Thatcher closed the mines in the 80's, and homes are still being bought by the English for holidays, pricing locals out of the market. Anne Robinson can get up on TV and racially slur the entire country and get a slap on the wrist?
But this does tie in nicely to my previous point, why on earth people feel the need to celebrate quite so vigorously the life of someone who did nothing to get there. She was just born.
I am not questioning your sense of pride, that is a very subjective term, but I am questioning your grasp on history and politics.
I will leave you with the words of Phil Bennett circa 1977
"Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and only live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, raped, controlled and punished by the English – and that's who you are playing this afternoon."
That is one of the most overtly bigoted, ignorant and xenophobic posts I have ever had the misfortune to read. I am only glad that the vast majority of people don't get raised on a diet of hatred, bitterness and bile and think like you do.
Your comments about Ann Robinson.. it's utterly laughable. What the hell should have happened to her for an unfunny quip anyway!? Stoned to death? Its like you think that there is a huge conspiracy on behalf of "The English" to crush your race. And you mock others for their grasp of history and politics?!
Exactly what is "The English" anyway, the people that have done all this raping? Who are they? You mean the 60 million people that have ancestry from all over Europe? What sins have any of the living people in England commited? 75% of them have Welsh/Scottish/Irish ancestry anyway. The problem with your attitude (best summarised by Rogal Dorn in "The Dark King audio drama! ) is that it literally never ends. Do you want to just pass your abject loathing onto your kids?
Your entire post was ridiculous, like it was ripped straight off the recruiting manual for some bizarre ultra-right Welsh nationalist group, and it has little basis in reality. In fact, It read like something I read in Afghanistan that the Taliban were posting through peoples doors, but you replaced "American Dogs" with "The English"
SilverMK2 wrote:
The miners unions did more than their fair share to get the mines closed and to pretend otherwise is the worst example of head in the sand I've come across in a while.
I lean more to the left than a man whose had his left leg blown off*, but even I have to admit the unions forced the hand of the milksnatcher.
dæl wrote:Yes, from 1900-2000 we, set up the Welfare State
Hate it. Costs us a fortune, makes people addicted to wellfare, fat chavs who never work from cradle to grave.
You wouldn't argue there is some need for a welfare state Matty? Yes it is badly organised at the moment, and I think the social problems run deeper with a growing underclass that bottom-feeds off the state, but having lived in countries with no welfare state (and especially health system) I'm glad we have it. The press never focuses on it, but there are genuine circumstances when people need that safety net.
Incidentally (and I'm not sure whether this is worthy of a new thread) but who do people think should be the next Monarch when the old dear pops her clogs? I read somewhere that Charles has only about 30% in favour of him becoming King, and from a few Royal 'insiders' who reckoned that the next 100 years of the Monarch would be assured with a younger and more popular King like William (should the royal line skip a generation and Charles abdicate?)
Personally I would be in favour of the latter, far too many "I hope I can be re-incarnated as your tampon"-type comments from Charles, and I'm not sure if anyone of my generation will ever forgive him for the way he carried on with Diana. But, what do people feel about this?
Yes of course I do mate, a happy medium and all that, but its far too complex a debate to have on here. I think I best saw it summarized by an Asian man on the big debate on TV.
"The safety net has become a fishing net!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
The miners unions did more than their fair share to get the mines closed and to pretend otherwise is the worst example of head in the sand I've come across in a while.
I lean more to the left than a man whose had his left leg blown off, but even I have to admit the unions forced the hand of the milksnatcher.
Great, now I feel dirty and need to scrub myself.
Indeed, our bigoted friend there makes you look like Rupert Murdoch.
Bongo_clive wrote:...and homes are still being bought by the English...
This is happening in Sheffield too. Getting on the property ladder is hard, everywhere.
Regarding the welfare state. I came a cropper on my bike yesterday. I spent yesterday evening in A&E and I'll be in fracture clinic on Monday morning. I'm glad that's there.
Bongo_clive wrote:
I will leave you with the words of Phil Bennett circa 1977
"Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and only live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, raped, controlled and punished by the English – and that's who you are playing this afternoon."
I'm part Welsh part English. Does that mean I should hate part of myself?
I don't see how hate and division can be a progressive policy in this day and age.
Phil Bennett via Bongo_Clive wrote:Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and only live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us?
SDFarsight wrote:"Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and only live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us?
Bongo_clive wrote:
The English have done nothing but loot Wales for 1000 years, and you celebrate the fact?
Just in case you are wondering how inaccurate that it is:
In 1012 The English or more properly the Anglo-Saxons were more concerned with invasion from France, Norway,and Denmark as the Norse systematically ripped the heart and soul out of the Angland (spelling intentional). Whilst they destroyed the original English language, culture, and laws in the 11th century your language survives as a living spoken language today. I suppose claiming the English ( a dubious racial and cultural description to begin with) have been looting Wales for 700 years doesn't have the same effect; even when it's just as false.
Her ancestors slaughtered ours, and you celebrate it? They did everything they could to wipe out the Welsh language, and you celebrate them?
I suppose you should be happy you aren't Cornish.
.
Bongo_clive wrote:I will leave you with the words of Phil Bennett circa 1977.
Phil Bennett wrote:"I play Rugby, who give two gaks what I think about England and Wales after my athletic career I didn't do a thing about it."
George Spiggott wrote:Fixed now.
I do like me some Welsh kings. Much better than the German lot we've got now.
If there was a Welsh king or queen on the throne you'd say you preferred zie Germans.
You're right, I should be more sober and understanding.
Let me first say I shall stop using the emotive language, it's obviously raising some heckles.
Secondly, my grasp of history is quite sound, as I am an archaeologist.
It's sad that just because some languages die out, you seem to think it's OK, especially when the English did everything they could do stamp it out. My teachers gre up in a world where if they spoke Welsh in school, they were caned (and there is no doubt their intolerance of this practice and the mentality behind has rubbed off on me)
And if we're being pedantic, England is full of Scandinavians and Norsemen, the last groups that successfully invaded the British Isles, and the only true British can be found in Wales and Cornwall. This much is true (and why I chortle when the BNP start blathering on).
But once William had sorted out England, he turned his attention to Wales, and from that day forward England has taken, taken taken, and never charitably given anything in return. The same happened in India, Ghana, Canada etc. Seriously, without getting all worked up, tell me what England has given any of those countries? The standard answer in 'Civilization', but did anyone ever ask for that? Never. Those indigenous people never asked to work for England, learn its religion and culture, or fight in its wars.
It's called colonialism or Imperialism, and the crucial element is that the people who are doing the colonising, think they're doing a good thing. (See USA foreign policy since 1941)
I am not bitter or downhearted, as this is the reaction the English always present in this argument, as I'm sure they do when presented with arguments about the colonisation of Ghana, India, Canada, Australia, Ireland and Scotland. I'm sorry I got flippant, I should not have done that, but the blinkered view of the English has become tiresome
PS Thatcher forgot the one principle that all politicians should have tattooed to their forehead. "Government for the people". She closed those mines because they weren't making much money, but that shouldn't matter, they were providing money for whole communities, keeping people off the dole, giving them dignity and pride. She took all that way to make more money for someone. Sickening
filbert wrote:If you are seriously a history teacher then I despair for your students...
I believe that he is an archaeologist rather than a teacher. However I would tend to agree with you...
Remedial reading comprehension for me then. Still, the point stands - claiming to have a good grasp of history and then writing the drivel that followed that does not compute.
Secondly, my grasp of history is quite sound, as I am an archaeologist.
One does not equal the other, as the rest of your post is ample evidence.
It's sad that just because some languages die out, you seem to think it's OK, especially when the English did everything they could do stamp it out. My teachers gre up in a world where if they spoke Welsh in school, they were caned (and there is no doubt their intolerance of this practice and the mentality behind has rubbed off on me)
In this alternative universe where "your teachers" grew up did they not have BBC Cymru or S4C and in this alternative universe had they not been broadcasting at least some Welsh content on BBC Radio since the 1930's? Perhaps they were caned for being obnoxious little gaks rather than speaking Welsh, as all the obnoxious little gaks that thought they could pull a fast one in Dutch on our teacher had red asses just like baboons which it seems was unrelated to the language.
WHILE we're being pedantic, England is full of Scandinavians and Norsemen, the last groups that successfully invaded the British Isles, and the only true British can be found in Wales and Cornwall.
Yes while you are being pedantic a young lady would like to tell you something about being British.
"What an amazing thing is our United Kingdom. Here we have the Welsh, the English, the Scots and the people of Ulster, each proud of their origin and concerned for their posterity; each regarding themselves, in some ways, as a separate cultural entity, but all combining to form a British nation with a British patriotism."
You should consider being British in addition to coming up with alternative history.
). I'm really not at all phased by our reptilian overlords. 
Do you really hate soldiers?
