Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bongo you do talk some sbwriel boyo.

Various reports noted there where over 300 official Street parties in Wales, and I saw plenty of folks have a grand old time on BBC Wales.

Wales Jubilee

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?

dæl wrote:

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.

dæl wrote:

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

mattyrm wrote:the homeless are housed

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.

SilverMK2 wrote:

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?

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:the homeless are housed

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?

AustonT wrote:

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:the homeless are housed

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?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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.

So yeah, my point stands.

dæl wrote:

AustonT wrote:

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:the homeless are housed

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.

dæl wrote:

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.

So yeah, my point stands.

Privately funded academies didn't exist beforehand?

You also shot protesters, en masse as well.

dæl wrote:

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

Prove it.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

dæl wrote:

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.

So yeah, my point stands.

Privately funded academies didn't exist beforehand?

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.

mattyrm wrote:

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).

Manchu wrote:@KilKrazy: TBF, most Americans would not recognize the Prince without a byline.

Your men, perhaps. I hear it's a lot different with your women.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Manchu wrote:@KilKrazy: TBF, most Americans would not recognize the Prince without a byline.

Your men, perhaps. I hear it's a lot different with your women.

He's been getting some payback for the GI's with their nylons and smokes coming over here stealing all our women

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Bongo you do talk some sbwriel boyo.

Various reports noted there where over 300 official Street parties in Wales, and I saw plenty of folks have a grand old time on BBC Wales.

Wales Jubilee

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."

Being Welsh, I'm also with Morathi.

mattyrm wrote:

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?

Pacific wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

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

Besides, Diana was a lunatic

Bongo_clive wrote:Diana was a lunatic

The country went somewhat mad for a while after her death, but she seemed alright.