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.

Don't worry EF - the queen is like the Emperor - we have already rigged up the throne to provide basic life support and as soon as the technology is available, we will be installing the psychic beacon so that she can reign over the galaxy.

Although it will be a sad day to see Mystic Meg thrown into the fire to power the queens throne...

Reds8n wrote:I'm not a class warrior, but I do think that someone who has gone from a poor or working class background to the leadership of their country certainly has something-- I don't know if you'd call it X factor, or drive or charm or just determination,, for example, Prescoot has endured terrible snobbery from worthless piles of crap like Soames -- and is more worthy of respect than someone who was simply born into wealth. It's not hard to understand.

No, I understand perfectly - I doesn't matter how incompetent and unsuitable for a job someone is, just as long as they had to work really hard to get there. Perhaps you think this is fair. It isn't - it's just inverted snobbery. The right person for any job is the most qualified person. I've never said that I would prefer a direct monarchy or other hereditary system, just that historically the monarchy has played a large part in our history, and that it's continued existence is no bad thing.

Some/many/most of the organisations serve useful purposes and are answerable to parliament, I don't have a problem with that.

Which is it? Some, many or most? Check this shambles out:

The Times wrote:
WHEN the autumn term starts this week the British Potato Council — annual budget: £6m — will be sending teams into schools to encourage children to sample crisps and eat chips. The BPC even has a dance troupe called the Chippie Dales.

To counter it, the Food Standards Agency — cost: £143m a year — will be campaigning to lower cholesterol and fight obesity which costs the country an estimated £7 billion a year. The organisations have conflicting agendas but both are quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations) paid for in part by the taxpayer.

and

Dr Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute which once estimated that there were 4,608 bodies to which ministers had powers of appointment, said: “Quangos are not as accountable as politicians are, and yet many have draconian powers over ordinary people.
“Some levy fees on ordinary people and business, while others say they are private companies and as such have avoided being scrutinised by the National Audit Office.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you swear allegiance to 'King/Queen and country',? -as opposed to the specific name of the person. Regardless, as I just said, I was merely using that example to show a position where the Royal Family comes in handy, that a government functionary would seem inadequate.

You're probably right though, with today's obsession with fame, why not just get Danni Minogue to hand out medals? Although I think if you asked the servicemen in here, if you gave them the choice between having a Victoria Cross pinned on by the Queen or the late Jade Goody, I'm pretty sure they'd pick the former. Even if you did get celebs to do it though, do you think they'd charge less than the Royal Family? . Considering all the other stuff the Royal Family do as well, it's virtually bargain basement price!

Allot of very interesting [YMMV] point making there fellas but going back on topic.

I'm all for the Monarchy, even the minor royals don't bother me. True the like of Princess Michael of Kent is a bit of a bint but you need someone to open Crufts and village halls so Her Madge can crack on with the bigger events, like opening the US for another few hundred years or getting half of Oz with their knickers in a twist!

As for the cost I can't think of anything that would give me as much pleasure for 62p a year as the royal family. Whether it is a scandal or Charlie sticking two fingers [figuratively speaking you understand old bean] at the Government or big business or taking a lead on Environmental issues. Brilliant value for money and have you tried Duchy bacon recently great stuff!

For all those who complain about privilege I understand their point but I would rather have one family who understand and commit to DUTY [that’s service not tax for those who are hard of thunkin'] representing us with a bit of style and panache than have another layer added to the political classes.

I will happily bow to the Queen when I meet her or indeed Charlie [who I think is making an increasingly important role for himself highlighting problems for the people] and be pleased to do so. You won't catch me doing any such thing near one of our political leaders who would rather bow to what the papers say rather than the people.

Ps I also like the fact that the Monarch holds the proverbial Sword of Damocles above the Governments head, rarely used but best trusted to Her Madge rather than a President. [I know it works for you Yanks but think on this, the French also have a President!]

No, I'm saying that I don't think you get to that position if you're not qualified or suitable.. unlike the monarchy where all you have to do is wait you turn.

Which is it? Some, many or most?

said that way purely as I don't really have any in depth knowledge of what the relevant groups do, how much they get and so on. Neitehr do you of course. Nor any great desire to either... as I suspect is the case with you.

As to the quotes.. well... the spud board is a wholly owned and operated susbsidiary of the AHDH which strives to

AHDB’s statutory purpose is defined in the AHDB Order 2008 as:

increasing efficiency or productivity in the industry;
improving marketing in the industry;
improving or developing services that the industry provides or could provide to the community;
improving the ways in which the industry contributes to sustainable development.

which seems fair enough to me, it's also funded through/by relevant companies and industries as well.

As to the "encouraging people to eat chips" line.. which is clear biased journalism this is actually http://www.potatoesforschools.org.uk/

encouraging kids to grow veg at school and eat better food... which is a bad thing ? Apparently, or if you just swallow what's written in a newspaper article without checking it out at least.

"paid for in part".. ahh.. so not wholly paid for by the tax payer either then.

There is no evidence that the FSA is campaigning directly against or in response to this initiative at all, other than their general activities to encourage people to eat healthily in general....by eating fresh home grown veg for example.

I agree that if one is a moron and doesn't think about the myriad of things Govt.s are involved in might seem daft or perhaps even contradictory... but huge sections of life are like that. The Govt. both penalises and tries to help things according to a myriad of shifting factors, which often do seem contradictory. They wante evryone to be healthy and walk more, but there's no way in hell they could stop helping the motoring industry is there ?

AS for the last quote... err.. what ? So the ASI -- " The Adam Smith Institute achieves the broadest possible impact because it is independent and non-party, maintaining good relations with policymakers across the political divide.

The Institute is non-profit, and relies on the support of a wide range of individuals, foundations and companies who understand the value of what it does in changing ideas and events. It also welcomes project sponsorship for its initiatives on individual policy issues"

-- is worried about unelected influence eh ? IRONY eh ?

And the quote is BS anyway : if the organisations are answerable to Mps... then, via them.. they are answerable to the people, far more so than the ASI is anyway.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Mr. K : I'm sure there's lots of people who'd like to pin something on Dani Minogue.


bit plasticy for my tastes however.

Reds8n wrote:said that way purely as I don't really have any in depth knowledge of what the relevant groups do, how much they get and so on. Neitehr do you of course. Nor any great desire to either... as I suspect is the case with you.

Well, of course. My original point is that the government spends the GDP of a small country on these organisations - most people don't know what they are for, or that they exist. Yet it seems that they impact upon our day to day lives to a fairly large degree in some cases. The monarchy, by comparison, is fairly cheap in relative terms and doesn't exert much (if any) practical control over our daily lives. They DO however provide a focus for national pride, generate income and play a large role in the national identity of The United Kingdom.

Fair enough, they play a largely ceremonial role - since when was a little ceremony a BAD thing?

No, I'm saying that I don't think you get to that position if you're not qualified or suitable..

And Prescott was qualified and suitable for the role of Deputy Prime Minister?

Manchu wrote:I'm not British but I like your German monarch. When she came for our quadricentinniel, all the people came out to see her. As the Ozzys might say, "she's a good Sheila, Bruce, and not at all stuck up."

The House of Hanover leading to the House of Windsor is older than the United States of America, so by your working out you aren't American but whatever nationality your ancestors were

on the tax point- i would like to see the tier 2 and tier 3 royals get alot less money, but the tier 1 royals actually do alot of work, not only getting tourist money but as ambassadors for the country and for numerous charities.

on the commonwealth point- there are countries actively trying to join the commonwealth so it still seems relevent in todays world scene.

reds8n wrote:No, I'm saying that I don't think you get to that position if you're not qualified or suitable.. unlike the monarchy where all you have to do is wait you turn.

yer cos someone raised from birth to do the job they will inherite is a bad choice, how long do most people train to do their job, when they start it, on average 6 years at the longest, the royal line are trained as soon as they can read and write, they are perfect for the role they fill.

I would like to see The Commonwealth expanded to be more of a political Union, similar to the EU. It could have ended up that way if we'd have let France join. I would venture that in certain aspects of culture, we have more in common with many commonwealth countries than with many of our european neighbours.

The Civil List is the annual cash stipend paid by Parliament to the Queen, who uses it to fund her normal expenses and disburses some of it for support of other members of the royal family.

You can probably look it up somewhere on the Internet.

The tax payer also pays for the upkeep of a number of palaces and royal buildings, which often contain "grace and favour" apartments which are used to house a variety of royal hangers on and staff.

The tax payer also funds military units some of which are used for ceremonial purposes or for ferrying Royals around.

I don't know whether the value for money argument is a good one. The French are a republic and have no trouble sucking in oodles of tourism, because they have wonderful art galleries, cafes, food and so on. Britain likewise has plenty to offer the visitor without depending specifically on royal ceremonials.

The question is the role of the Royal Family as a focus of (a) British national feeling and (B) Canadian/Australian/Commonwealth feeling.

The various Scandi royals do a pretty good job without costing a fortune but they have very limited international roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To put it differently, not many of us have respect for the elected politicians, but a lot of us have respect for Brenda even though she wasn't elected.

Albatross wrote:I would like to see The Commonwealth expanded to be more of a political Union, similar to the EU. It could have ended up that way if we'd have let France join. I would venture that in certain aspects of culture, we have more in common with many commonwealth countries than with many of our european neighbours.

At least when it comes to sport.

If the commonwealth did more than it does now (sport, diplomacy, charity and aid) it could become a very powerful comglomerate of a world power, but this is very unlikely to happen

Kilkrazy wrote:The tax payer also pays for the upkeep of a number of palaces and royal buildings.

But even if the royal family were disbanded, these buildings would still be looked after by the tax payers (or lotto players) as they are historical buildings of importance

Albatross wrote:
Fair enough, they play a largely ceremonial role - since when was a little ceremony a BAD thing?

I think it's a good thing... but £40 odd million pounds I want a bit better than what we get there. I will say though I can more than see how it is awkward in the extreme to find things they can do that either aren't going to cause a Constitutional uproar or all manner of upheaval and are still worthwhile.

..there's a whole thread about Andrew and Edward I'm sure but that would be churlish.

as to

My original point is that the government spends the GDP of a small country on these organisations - most people don't know what they are for, or that they exist. Yet it seems that they impact upon our day to day lives to a fairly large degree in some cases.

Totally... and ? These organisations aren't hidden, they aren't secret shadowy cabals.. they're all on public record. It's just that most people don't really care.

I think there's an argument perhaps that most people in the country are appalling ignorant about the mechanisms of Govt. in this country anyway, especially compared to most of the American's and their knowledge of their form of Govt. *shrugs*

No, I'm saying that I don't think you get to that position if you're not qualified or suitable..

And Prescott was qualified and suitable for the role of Deputy Prime Minister?

It might seem odd but you'll note when he was in office the Govt. ran much more smoothly and effectively, not least as he was the peacemaker between Blair and Brown and quite capable of standing his ground with either of them...

.. you saw that right hook he threw right at the "eggman" yeah ?



He was also the restraint or go between with the unions as well, again see how trouble with them has flared up once the Labour Party lost any one in the upper echelons of the party with decent Union connections/who knew where the bodies they didn't want dug were to be found.

Scary to think he was desirable to women though eh ?

I aint British but my 2 cents:

Well, do you?

No.

After reading another thread that veered slightly OT (I know, big shock...), I thought I would find out people's various opinions on the matter.

Do we like 'em?

Do we need em?

Do we even give a gak?

Personally, I like the Royals. They are part of what makes us British. Without our Royal Heritage, we'd just be another windswept island in the North Sea. Like Iceland. Doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being facetious here otherwise way to go insulting another soverign country. Your arrogance is quite disturbing.
As for making you British, I've observed a noticable trend amongst the British over the last decade desperately hanging onto "what makes us British" as your society is erroded both internally and extrernally.

People complain that they get tax-payers money, but with the money generated from tourism at royal sites, we're actually turning a handsome profit, which would be reason enough to keep them. Plus, the money we pay to the Royals is a small fraction of what this current Labour government pays out to unelected think-tanks and quangoes. The sort of organisations that need several million pounds to tell us that eating vegetables is good for you. Money well spent, I'm sure you'll agree.

How do two wrongs make a right? Sure millions are wasted on pointless committess and review groups but spending money on the Royals is any better?
As for your tourism point I'd love to see a direct monetary correlation between the Royals and your tourist industry. FYI most people coundt give a blankity blank about them anymore and are more interested in visiting other attractions within Britain.

Other nations feel free to chip in your opinions, but remember: THIS LADY IS THE NATION'S GRANDMOTHER - DO NOT TROLL THIS THREAD WITH NEEDLESSLY INSULTING COMMENTS ABOUT OUR MONARCH. I AM DEADLY SERIOUS. Criticism of institutions is fine.

I care much? Shes a dotty old woman, out of touch, backward, supported by traditionalists who crave "Old Britannia" back, the old Britania whos imperialst standpoint and activities (is) and has wrecked country after country. If you (plural) need to take pride in your country by worshipping a dated monarch figurehead you have more problems then I thought.

Anyway, here she is gaaawdblesser:

And ugly to boot.

@Reds8n - Again, £40 million (rounding up) is a drop in the ocean, compared to what we lose to benefit fraud (£900 million!) for example.

Ratius wrote:I aint British but my 2 cents:

Well, do you?

No.

After reading another thread that veered slightly OT (I know, big shock...), I thought I would find out people's various opinions on the matter.
Do we like 'em?
Do we need em?
Do we even give a gak?
Personally, I like the Royals. They are part of what makes us British. Without our Royal Heritage, we'd just be another windswept island in the North Sea. Like Iceland. Doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being facetious here otherwise way to go insulting another soverign country. Your arrogance is quite disturbing.
As for making you British, I've observed a noticable trend amongst the British over the last decade desperately hanging onto "what makes us British" as your society is erroded both internally and extrernally.

People complain that they get tax-payers money, but with the money generated from tourism at royal sites, we're actually turning a handsome profit, which would be reason enough to keep them. Plus, the money we pay to the Royals is a small fraction of what this current Labour government pays out to unelected think-tanks and quangoes. The sort of organisations that need several million pounds to tell us that eating vegetables is good for you. Money well spent, I'm sure you'll agree.

How do two wrongs make a right? Sure millions are wasted on pointless committess and review groups but spending money on the Royals is any better?
As for your tourism point I'd love to see a direct monetary correlation between the Royals and your tourist industry. FYI most people coundt give a blankity blank about them anymore and are more interested in visiting other attractions within Britain.

Other nations feel free to chip in your opinions, but remember: THIS LADY IS THE NATION'S GRANDMOTHER - DO NOT TROLL THIS THREAD WITH NEEDLESSLY INSULTING COMMENTS ABOUT OUR MONARCH. I AM DEADLY SERIOUS. Criticism of institutions is fine.

I care much? Shes a dotty old woman, out of touch, backward, supported by traditionalists who crave "Old Britannia" back, the old Britania whos imperialst standpoint and activities (is) and has wrecked country after country. If you (plural) need to take pride in your country by worshipping a dated monarch figurehead you have more problems then I thought.

Anyway, here she is gaaawdblesser:

And ugly to boot.

You sound pretty arrogant yourself, the Iceland example is a good one seeing as their county has gone down the internationally toilet very quickly, if you read the news you would know that, Ireland itself has been going through the same 'identity' problem for just as long as the UK, so you can get off the high horse

err.. and ?

I'm sure if they suddenly saved £40 million of of that people would be happy.

I'm not exactly happy about the fact that there is so much apparent fraud of this/other systems, but I fail to see what quangos have to do with that either.

I guess there's an argument we should put more effort into cutting down on benefit fraud in some ways... but that would of course involve new organisations and or staff for etc etc etc.

@ Mr. ratius : I'm quite sure Mr. 'tross wasn't setting out to be offensive to Iceland, despite their appaling support of the Katonas....

.. hang on a minute...

I've observed a noticable trend amongst the British over the last decade desperately hanging onto "what makes us British" as your society is erroded both internally and extrernally.

I've observed a noticeable trend amongst the Irish that they think we care what they think of us. Irish society is a mess, the country is on the verge of going bankrupt. What do you have to hang onto as a matter of national pride?

Oh, wait. Hating the British. Pathetic.

I care much? Shes a dotty old woman, out of touch, backward, supported by traditionalists who crave "Old Britannia" back, the old Britania whos imperialst standpoint and activities (is) and has wrecked country after country. If you (plural) need to take pride in your country by worshipping a dated monarch figurehead you have more problems then I thought.

You cared enough to post. Nice trolling though.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being facetious here otherwise way to go insulting another soverign country. Your arrogance is quite disturbing

An old saying about pot calling the kettle black springs to mind...?

I've sworn allegiance to Her Majesty,family and future Heirs to the crown. I stand up when Her Majesty presents her christmas speech. I'm proud to have 'Royal' in my Corps title. I laugh when Prince Philip makes a gaff about Aborigines (have I spelt that right),or Indians. The Royal family are what set us apart from the rest of the world. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

You sound pretty arrogant yourself, the Iceland example is a good one seeing as their county has gone down the internationally toilet very quickly, if you read the news you would know that, Ireland itself has been going through the same 'identity' problem for just as long as the UK

The International banking crisis has hit their country particularly hard so they should be singled out in a derogatory way?
Now whos being arrogant?

And yes I agree when England sneezes Ireland catches a cold much to our chigrin but we werent talking about Ireland were we? The point was the British monarchy and their relevance/legitimacy.

I've observed a noticeable trend amongst the Irish that they think we care what they think of us. Irish society is a mess, the country is on the verge of going bankrupt. What do you have to hang onto as a matter of national pride?

Oh, wait. Hating the British. Pathetic.

More reading is needed by your goodself Im afraid. We're far from bankrupt, our banking plans whilst not perfect have been endosred by the EU and things are slowly turning around.
Sweeping generalisations FTL.

And playing the whole "Ireland hate England" card is pathetic in itself (and quite dated tbh), most Irish people dont hate the English, we infact like them and actually have a kinship with them, especially in certain cities. However we do take umbrage with past policies implement by your powers that be, that include the Monarchy.

As for trolling, you ask peoples views on a public forum on the monacrchy, dont like the response from an uppity Paddy and throw a hissy fit.
Relax, you'll live longer.

Albatross wrote:

I've observed a noticable trend amongst the British over the last decade desperately hanging onto "what makes us British" as your society is erroded both internally and extrernally.

I've observed a noticeable trend amongst the Irish that they think we care what they think of us. Irish society is a mess, the country is on the verge of going bankrupt. What do you have to hang onto as a matter of national pride?

Oh, wait. Hating the British. Pathetic.

I care much? Shes a dotty old woman, out of touch, backward, supported by traditionalists who crave "Old Britannia" back, the old Britania whos imperialst standpoint and activities (is) and has wrecked country after country. If you (plural) need to take pride in your country by worshipping a dated monarch figurehead you have more problems then I thought.

You cared enough to post. Nice trolling though.

Modquisition on.
If you don't want negative opinions I might as well shut down the thread.
You asked for opinions from Brits. There they are. Its your fault for asking a question you didn't know the answer to. Calling them trolls because they disagree with you is itself trolling.
Rule #1 is in effect here as well. Posters that attack other posters on this thread will be subject to disciplinary from this point forward.

@Ratius

Thursday, December 31, 2009
8 Countries on The Verge Of Going Under
The European Commission (EC) itself has warned that the finances of half of the Eurozone's sixteen economies are at risk of becoming 'unsustainable', essentially bankrupt. As shown in the Wall Street Journal graphic below, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Greece are all teetering on the brink.

And FYI - I was using Iceland as an example of another island in the North Sea.

Ratius wrote:
And playing the whole "Ireland hate England" card is pathetic in itself (and quite dated tbh), most Irish people dont hate the English, we infact like them and actually have a kinship with them, especially in certain cities. However we do take umbrage with past policies implement by your powers that be, that include the Monarchy.

The important word is highlighted. Past. The fact that you felt the need to come and post things like this:

Ratius wrote:I care much? Shes a dotty old woman, out of touch, backward, supported by traditionalists who crave "Old Britannia" back, the old Britania whos imperialst standpoint and activities (is) and has wrecked country after country. If you (plural) need to take pride in your country by worshipping a dated monarch figurehead you have more problems then I thought.

...shows an underlying resentment of Britain. The British Crown no longer has any influence over Ireland (I would hazard a guess that you personally have abolutely no experience of Ireland under British rule) - perhaps you should think about growing up, and getting over it.

Ratius wrote:As for trolling, you ask peoples views on a public forum on the monacrchy, dont like the response from an uppity Paddy and throw a hissy fit.
Relax, you'll live longer.

I asked for BRITISH people's views on the Monarchy. I asked that foreigners refrain from needlessly insulting Her Majesty, but overall criticism of institutions is absolutely fine under Dakka rules. You posted a 'hissy fit' about 'those mean Brits and their Imperialist jackboot!'. I never used the word 'Paddy' - again, grow up.

I wasn't initially gonna be bothered, but ah, what the heck.

Ratius wrote:
As for making you British, I've observed a noticable trend amongst the British over the last decade desperately hanging onto "what makes us British" as your society is erroded both internally and extrernally.

Examples? Society worldwide is changing on a global scale. Despite that, there are certain key differences between people of various nations. I would dispute your view that our society is being eroded, and say it is evolving instead. Give examples to support your view that British society is crumbling, and falling apart. And by that, I mean something other than the Daily Mail preferably.

How do two wrongs make a right? Sure millions are wasted on pointless committess and review groups but spending money on the Royals is any better?

Ignoring for the minute the question of whether the Royals are a waste of money or not, the point is that so much money is wasted in other ways, that the Royals are but a drop in the ocean. If someone were truly concerned about saving money, there are other places of far greater wastage that need to be addressed first before moving down the ladder.

As for your tourism point I'd love to see a direct monetary correlation between the Royals and your tourist industry. FYI most people coundt give a blankity blank about them anymore and are more interested in visiting other attractions within Britain.

Clearly you have never seen the crowds outside in London for the changing of the Guard and whatnot. There are many, many tourists who come to see the sights of London, and Buckingham, and various other Royal events play a large part in that. I was chatting to a girl I met on the train on the way back from Royal Ascot. She was American, and had made an hour and a halfs train ride out of london on a service she didn't know to a place she didn't know, because seeing the Queen, and the Royal Ascot were two things she had been told back home were the sights of England.

I care much? Shes a dotty old woman, out of touch, backward,

Dotty? Out of touch? My word sir, clearly you are a close confidante of the woman, and have met her repeatedly! How on earth did you manage it, being all the way over there in ireland? I was in her security detail at one point, and I would hesitate before making such a presumptuous judgement of the woman!

supported by traditionalists who crave "Old Britannia" back, the old Britania whos imperialst standpoint and activities (is) and has wrecked country after country. .

I'm sorry? How is asserting our national identity synonomous with being Imperialistic? I take it that Russians cannot be patriotic because of the purges, the Italians because of the Romans, etc then in your eyes? As to wrecking countries, the merits and demerits of the British Empire would take up an entire other thread. Suffice to say, such a blanket generalised statement is astonishing in its clear lack of depth and knowledge.

If you (plural) need to take pride in your country by worshipping a dated monarch figurehead you have more problems then I thought.

Worship? My friend, you have it all wrong. I support the Queen on several logical grounds, which you will see if you read the rest of this thread. I do not 'worship' her, she is not a deity. Implying that I'm so mindless as to 'worship' a regular woman is an insult to my intelligence.

And ugly to boot.

And with that, you finish a series of crude, offensive statements. She;s an old woman. What do you expect? If you hoped to see Marilyn Monroe, I'm afraid she's a bit past it these days. However, next time you see your Grandmother, make a point of telling her how ugly she is. I'm sure she'll be thrilled.

Well, as an american... I had the privilege of ALMOST seeing the queen in real-life. She came to my state to celebrate the something hundred year founding of Jamestown. I just had school on that day and din't want to drive 30+ minutes to go there. But hey, I didn't go see Obama when he was just 5 minutes away from my campus. She's like a mascot to you guys and people genrally like mascots.

Also, this is gettin kind of flamey. I thought you guys had a special way of dealing with stuff like this. The brit would flame the irishman, and then the irishman would retaliate, and then the scotsman would yell, and then everyone would get drunk and laugh it off.

@Halonachos - What would the Welsh be doing in this particular scenario?

I would imagine they would be drinking before the scotsman, irishman, and brit got to the pub.

He leeks it to the press.

Well... it's been a fun ride, kind of odd in parts. Insummary then : some like them, some don't, no one 's really that bothered, they're kind of there, like wallpaper, in the background and surroundings.

And no one likes Kerry Katona.