Happy Diamond Jubilee!

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.

**dæl**

@notprop.
To be fair there are many pearls 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**

George Spiggott wrote:
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**

George Spiggott wrote:
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**

George Spiggott wrote:
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.
I said that a decade ago, where were you?

Marching against Iraq.

**dæl**

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.

**dæl**

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.

**dæl**

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.

**dæl**

purplefood wrote:
reds8n wrote:
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'.

http://www.businessinsider.com/documents-reveal-british-royalty-secretly-veto-legislation-2012-4

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16099842

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.

**dæl**

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**

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?

**dæl**

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.

**dæl**

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?

**dæl**

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.

**dæl**

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**

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**

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**

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**

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**

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**

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**

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).

**dæl**

Bongo_clive wrote:Diana was a lunatic

Spoiler:

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

**dæl**

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.

*plagiarised from the great Charlie Brooker

**dæl**

Stephen Fry for king. That is all.

**dæl**

AustonT wrote:
purplefood wrote:We allknew this day would come...

I was pretty sure Stephen Fry was two things:
Already a Queen :BAM!
and
A republican.

Yes he is, but only those reluctant to take power are truly worthy to have it.

**dæl**

Bongo_clive wrote:Lol at all the English

I would respond with lol at all the Welsh, but you might lump me in with Anne Robinson.

**dæl**

@bongo_clive

We all know that the Anglo-Saxons where not originally from Britain, whats your point? The UK has always assimilated cultures, thats how we work. Hell, thats how the world works. Not on a basis of xenophobia and centuries old boundries, but on the basis that culture is a living breathing entity that evolves.

And Hong Kong, Singapore and the Caribbean did pretty well out of colonialism, other places less so, but the point is that colonialism itself is not inherently evil. BTW should I remind you of Wales' attempt at colonialism in Patagonia?

Thatcher closed the mines because we had no energy security, factories across the country could only open 3 days a week because of the actions of the Unions, this was destroying the entire economy. The Unions had only themselves to blame for the closures. So her choosing between the few, who were causing the problem in the first place, and everyone else who didn't have electricity for most of the week, she did govern for the people(please stop making me defend the milksnatcher, it hurts my liberal sensibilities).

**dæl**

Lol Braveheart.

Stewart Lee wrote:Braveheart is the gakkest fim ever made, it was, it was directed by the reactionary Catholic bigot Mel Gibson and it's full of basic, fundamental historical errors which insult your race. Here's just three off the top of my head. Firstly, William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, he wasn't some noble savage living in a mud hut. He was a privileged, educated Nobleman, right? Secondly, its not mentioned in the film, but there's some evidence to suggest that he actually fought as a mercenary for the English as a teenager. Thirdly, you know that French princess he's supposed to have sex with? The implication is that he gets her pregnant and she marries Edward II of England so its his kid. Now she was a real historical figure, that French princess. But at the time of the death of William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, she was only 4 years old. Now, Glasgow, Im not saying that William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, didn't have sex with her. You know, he probably did. If I look at my own background there's a lot of sexual opportunism involved. Im not saying he didn't have sex with her but if he did, and he definitely did, it would have been a far less romantic scene than the one enacted by Mel Gibson in the film Braveheart. It may have happened in a tent but it would still have been not a romantic scene. Because that would have made William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, a paedophile.

As for colonialism, noone argued that it was a force of absolute good, simply that it wasn't a force of absolute evil, you go to Hong Kong and tell me they would have been better off without being a colony, or Singapore. They wouldn't be half as developed as they are today. Also the British, well the English as it was Bristol, took the lead in abolishing the Slave Trade.

Wales has it quite nicely at the moment, be careful what you wish for because your lives would be rather different under independence, after all you wouldn't have the taxes of the English paying for your Uni fees, and free prescriptions, and free care for the elderly.

**dæl**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Surveys regarding support for independence have yielded different results, though they often find that between 10 and 15% of Welsh desire independence from the United Kingdom.[10] A 2001 survey for the Institute of Welsh Affairs found that 11% of people polled favoured independence.[11] A 2007 survey by the Institute of Welsh Politics at the University of Wales found that 12% of those questioned supported independence, down slightly from 14% in 1997.[12] A poll taken by BBC Wales Newsnight in 2007 found that 20% of Welsh questioned favoured independence.[10] A 2006 poll taken by Wales on Sunday found the number to be as high as 52%, although the poll mostly interviewed people in North Wales where support for independence is strongest.[13]

Easy solution, cut off North Wales. We don't like it anyway.

Then there's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/01/welsh-independence-supported-by-only-7-of-residents_n_1312660.html

7% is interesting, I'd bet that there's a higher percentage of English who would want Welsh independence than Welsh that do. I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

**dæl**

SilverMK2 wrote:Just think of the job stimulus if Wales and Scotland devolved - Hundreds of jobs for rebuilding all the castles along the Welsh and Scottish border to keep out the starving, unemployed and homeless Scots and Welsh

And the alterations making Hadrian's Wall 30ft high.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Whats the incentive to stay in the union then? Seems undeserved to take that away.

How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?