You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
you do realise you are not the sole arbiter of fact in the world don’t you?
I am fairly confident that I am the sole arbiter of my opinions.
The issue appears to be that I accept that not everyone has the same opinion as me. A concept that you appear to struggle with, as you sneeringly dismiss "sheeples", your hilarious play on the words sheep and people.
**Noone under 40, at best , will recognise Jackie Chan. That’s just nonsense. My kids wouldn’t recognise an Elvis song either – they’re for old people now only
Again, maybe in England but I think you’re very wrong on that too. Google how well known he is.
I am fairly confident that I am the sole arbiter of my opinions.
You do realise that your ability to recognise the Queen or Jackie Chan is not really relevant in deciding which are most recognisable world wide don't you. You are truly hilarious. You are so desperate to be seen as right, you appear not to notice what tripe you type.
I at least am happy to concede my view is a minority one and if others disagree fine but your narcissistic tendencies are pretty breath taking.
you appear not to notice what tripe you type.
Gosh, you sound very angry, and all because of the jubilee celebrations, and people going to them, "really annoy" you.
You do realise that your ability to recognise the Queen or Jackie Chan is not really relevant in deciding which are most recognisable world wide don’t you.
Yup, which is why I referred to myself and not anyone else. I also pointed out the advantages of having you face on postage stamps, coins, and bank notes.
Anyway put the kettle on, make yourself a nice cup of tea, and try to reflect whether this is something to get so angry about. I'm sure that you will feel better for it.
also pointed out the advantages of having you face on postage stamps, coins, and bank notes
In China 🤔😂😂😂😂😂
Keep trying!
Anyway put the kettle on, make yourself a nice cup of tea, and try to reflect whether this is something to get so angry about. I’m sure that you will feel better for it.
I'm afraid to say that since your last 4/10 for trolling you have just got worse and worse...2/10 you need to do some serious reflection if you want to up your game.
In China 🤔😂😂😂😂😂
Keep trying!
Jackie Chan's face is more recognisable across the world because the post office doesn't deliver letters to China?
Well it sounds like a weird conclusion but okay.
Personally I reckon Donald Trump's face is probably more instantly recognisable across the world than either the Queen's or Jackie Chan's.
Although I'm not entirely sure how face recognition became an important issue in what appears to have turned into a rather angry debate on whether there should be jubilee celebrations.
And whether people attending them is a justifiable reason for some people to get 'really annoyed'.
Well it sounds like a weird conclusion but okay.
Someone give the AI a kick.
This Jackie Chan subplot thing- do I have to understand it ?
Not at all.
A distraction...
Sorry for derailing the thread with Jackie Chan 😂 Both my kids recognise him (four and eight). Neither of them know who the Queen is unless they see her with a crown because that’s obvious!
Bored so looking through lists on Google. It would appear The Rock is the most famous person in the world in 2022. Neither the Queen or Jackie are in the top 20! As you were. Weird Jubilee Fight
Recommences in 3,2,1
Sorry for derailing the thread with Jackie Chan 😂
FFS it was you!
And I can see the problem with regards to the Queen not wearing the crown btw. Personally I have always thought that the Queen should wear her crown whilst at work, in the same way as many people have to wear a hardhat at work. It just comes with the job.
A distraction
That's brilliant!!!
It would appear The Rock is the most famous person in the world in 2022.
I saw that, but then in earnie style I thought it must be wrong as I have never seen a film with him in and he's not on any stamps or money 😜😄
I would have thought Chairman Mao would be the most recognisable person in the world
Nah, Adolf Hitler.
he’s a cultural icon… I find it weird that anyone wouldn’t recognise him
TBH that’s what the queen is.
(Like Jeremy Clarkson 😉
Jackie Chan was welcome light relief, thanks FMP! Though STW even managed to turn 'Weird Jubilee Fight' into Weird Jackie Chan Fight' for a while. I don't think the subject actually matters, handbags at 10 paces whatever!
Personally I have always thought that the Queen should wear her crown whilst at work
I’d go further and make her wear a big robe and have a court Jester (other than her sons) with her at all times.
Did we have a winner for the most sycophantic speech ? 🙂
,I think I have more of a problem with that rather than the queen, I wonder if she finds it cringeworthy.
It’s a pity she never wrote any books tbh as she must have as many anecdotes about famous people as the people who have anecdotes about her and she has had a interesting life.
Why Billy certainly wins the biggest hypocrite speech. All his pretending to care about the environment when he’s not out shooting it it going private jet to go and look at it.
i think his dads speech was pretty sycophantic and nauseating
Any speech in which a 70 yd old bloke refers to his mother as 'mummy' - and is broadcast around the world - is vomit inducing and beyond cringeworthy.
I’d go further and make her wear a big robe and have a court Jester (other than her sons) with her at all times.
Be fair. Once a week is quite enough for her.
BTW - both the queen and charlie boy regularly interfere in the democratic process. Here are details of one such instance
And others
I put the crankiness from the usual quarters down to Putin's escapades meaning they can wear their favourite t-shirts so have to do something to prove their still against the establishment.
Chin up comrades, when he's back in his box usual service can resume.
Once a week is quite enough for her.
A round of applause for that one! But it’s got me wondering how frequently they do meet now… we know other PMs met with her weekly, but I really can’t seem him getting around to it.
This one probably meets with her weakly.
regularly interfere in the democratic process. Here are details of one such instance
Blimey, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP really are matey with Mrs Windsor:
"The documents also suggest Nicola Sturgeon’s government failed to disclose the monarch’s lobbying this year when a Scottish politician used a parliamentary debate to query why the Queen was securing an exemption from the green energy bill".
Although I somehow doubt that this was personally instigated by the Queen herself. I can't imagine that a 95 year old financially secure woman with a very busy routine worries about trivial stuff like that.
I suspect that at best she was possibly informed by her lawyers of their intentions and merely requested to grant her approval. I doubt that she often rejects advice which she is given.
Quite how hands-on a woman of that age is expected to be I'm not sure. Especially as this occurred at a time when it had become apparent that her 99 year old husband was close to death.
I think it does raise questions but perhaps more directed at the Scottish government. You would expect lawyers to act in the interests of their clients but not necessarily for governments to always respond positively to lobbying.
I can’t imagine that a 95 year old financially secure woman with a very busy routine worries about trivial stuff like that.
You do realise it dates back decades dont you?
Its just rarely gets out since it would damage the royals alleged political neutrality if their interference became known.
A good example being how the publically recorded wills, unlike everyone elses, are routinely kept secret. Started with them wanting to keep secret an embarrassing gift to a mistress but now, who knows?
It's widely accepted - but maybe not on this thread - that Muhammad Ali is is the best known person in the world.
You do realise it dates back decades dont you?
No I don't. The article I was quoting from with reference to Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish government refers to events occurring the first half of last year. It is quite specific.
The monarchy as an institution is difficult to defend in the 21st, and all the more so as the monarch has no meaningful political power.
Any privileges that they might enjoy is merely bestowed upon them by those who feel that the continuation of the monarchy is beneficial to them.
Any criticism of what is considered to be unacceptable with regards to the monarchy should be directed at politicians, not some woman born into a job which gives her no actual power.
The Queen is no more responsible for what is done in her name than she is for the Queen's speech. She does what politicians tell her to do.
Obviously she could personally embrace a more left-wing revolutionary less conservative attitude and rebel against the system, but I am happy to focus on the monarchy as an institution rather than the individual.
I’m still marvelling at the 70 glorious years thing.
Do I have to go back to work now ?
No I don’t. The article I was quoting from with reference to Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish government refers to events occurring the first half of last year. It is quite specific.
Thats a bit like saying Johnson only attended a party for five minutes whilst ignoring all the other parties. Rather blinkered and shows absolutely no understanding of the subject.
and all the more so as the monarch has no meaningful political power.
Aside from, as covered above, we dont actually know that. We know the veto is used as a threat to change laws to suit her and her families personal interests but we dont know the extent since apparently that might put people off them.
A bit of a red flag really.
Chin up comrades, when he’s back in his box usual service can resume.
Odd statement considering the monarchy are Putin and his oligarches made good. When they have managed to get themselves so embedded into the political system over a few hundred years you have people defending them whilst attacking their modern variants.
Rather blinkered and shows absolutely no understanding of the subject.
I am happy to concede that I have no expertise whatsoever with regards to the monarchy, the royal family, and what they get up to. As I have said previously I have absolutely no interest in them and struggle to even know the names of half of them.
My comments were purely with regards to the link provided by TJ and the information it provided.
Yet despite knowing nothing about the subject I am nevertheless still confident that under a constitutional monarchy the monarch has no meaningful power and all constitutional and legislative power is in the hands of politicians**
And on that basis I would direct criticism towards politicians not at the monarch. After all I tend to blame the Prime Minister if I'm not happy with the contents of the Queen's speech, not the Queen.
**Unless you can provide evidence to suggest the contrary in which case I would be genuinely interested.
If the monarch meets the pm once a week they must talk about something? Who knows. Should be declared imo. If anyone else was meeting the pm regularly we should know why imo.
I'm firmly with ernie on this - the idea that the Queen is meddling in government policy seems to be the thin end of the paranoid Lizard Overlord conspiracy wedge.
You'd hope the constitutional monarch would be interested in what the PM tells her the government is planning every Tuesday. With 70 years experience and 14 PMs you'd hope she might offer an opinion or experience that few others can.
you’d hope she might offer an opinion or experience that few others can.
That's the point
It’s widely accepted – but maybe not on this thread – that Muhammad Ali is is the best known person in the world.
Thought it was Ronnie Pickering?
There is plenty of evidence of the queen interfering in the political process and its been going on for a long time. Yes her power is limited but it is there and she has used it on many occasions
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
My Jubilee sentiment plummeted this morning - I think everyone forgot how to drive! Two close passes, a near left hook and a SMIDSY - I think that is usually the total for a year, let alone a single morning's ride of 5 miles to work...
the idea that the Queen is meddling in government policy seems to be the thin end of the paranoid Lizard Overlord conspiracy wedge.
Yes it must be that. Not that you and Ernie are ill informed and willing to buy into the myth of the glorious monarchy who are purely self sacrificing and noble servers of the nation.
The fact is she gets to vet laws which might impact her and there is clear evidence that on occasion those laws have been changed to suit her personal whims and profit.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consentblockquote >With 70 years experience and 14 PMs you’d hope she might offer an opinion or experience that few others can.
This assumes she actually has the intelligence to provide useful input. Something not demonstrated by her children. Admittedly we could have regression to the mean but considering her only qualification is being the offspring of someone it doesnt bode well.
both the queen and charlie boy regularly interfere in the democratic process
But not in a way that is exclusive to them being royal? I mean lots of lobbying goes on, doesn't it?
Note the question marks here.
Odd statement considering the monarchy are Putin and his oligarches made good. When they have managed to get themselves so embedded into the political system over a few hundred years you have people defending them whilst attacking their modern variants
Yep,it’s what I find quite weird they both quack like a duck but ones bad and ones good 🙂
But not in a way that is exclusive to them being royal? I mean lots of lobbying goes on, doesn’t it?
Wrong. They have explicit veto rights on laws (Crown land and then for the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster).
They also have specific exemptions from us finding out about their lobbying.
But not in a way that is exclusive to them being royal? I mean lots of lobbying goes on, doesn’t it?
Nope - its built into the process. Royal consent. Read the articles. No one else gets to consent on bills that affect them. Basically what she does is threaten to delay bills unless its changed in her favour.
My take away from the weekend is that a man in his 70's who still says "mummy" is going to be the next head of state, and we don't get a say in it but are expected to wave a wee plastic flag while he goes past in a golden horse drawn carriage.
Who the **** is Ronnie Pickering?
Not that you and Ernie are ill informed and willing to buy into the myth of the glorious monarchy who are purely self sacrificing and noble servers of the nation.
When we have clearly stated that its outdated and needs sorting?
Thanks for sharing the link on consent - clearly one of those areas that need sorting.
Though as molgrips post hinted, and I may be twisting his words, in terms of damage to the nation and it's citizens, plenty of other vested interests have done more damage than the Queen. She's the dead cat to distract us all. How many years of the civil list equate to the billions wasted on PPE?
the royal family cost the country 350 million a year.
plenty of other vested interests have done more damage than the Queen.
But in lots of ways, she's the embodiment of a system of vested interests that act in a particular and largely invisible way. The UK banks and finance houses work they way they do because of the fact that we hang on to "Overseas Territories" as a remnant of Empire, that some schools are patronised by the Royal Family means they get special treatment, that the City of London has representation in the HOC, is a throw back. That lands and titles are held because of connections to Royalty. The fact that we have a heredity head of state has implications away from just who is on the throne. The fact that MPs cannot stand as republicans. It goes on and on, in ways that are so tangled and "established" that we fail to see how damaging they are.
because of the fact that we hang on to “Overseas Territories” as a remnant of Empire
Bleedin'ell, Mrs Windsor is now is being held responsible for the UK's imperial legacy. Well it needs to cut both ways in that case - when she came to the throne Britian had a very substantial empire covering vast areas of the World, now 70 years later it has all but vanished.
Presumably we should give her personal credit for that or is she only responsible for what she inherited not what occurred during her reign?
The reason we have a constitutional monarchy in the UK is because it suits the interests of those who wield political power, not because of some sort of philanthropic act towards Mrs Windsor and her family.
It provides stability to the system and guarantees a central rallying point should it ever come under serious threat. It also provides when necessary the possibility to bypass the democratic process, not in the interests of the Queen but in the interests of bourgeois politicians, eg despite its name the royal prerogative is the prerogative of government ministers not the Queen.
You would struggle to find something as blatantly undemocratic as that in any other country which is classed as a democracy. Just because something is said to be done in the name of the Queen it doesn't mean that she is personally responsible.
There is no doubt that the ruling classes, the state, and the monarchy, all share common interests. But the idea that parliament cannot say no to the monarch is daft. We are talking about the UK here not Saudi Arabia. If the Scottish government in the earlier example had not responded favourably to lobbying by the Queen's lawyers no one would have been arrested for treason.
Abolishing the monarchy would certainly save a few quid but it would not necessarily represent a shift of power or result in Britian becoming any more democratic - depending on how it was handled and what replaced it the result could actually be the opposite imo.
I am very far from happy with the existing social order but I don't see dealing with the issue of monarchy as a priority.
I don’t see dealing with the issue of monarchy as a priority.
As it’s something you know little about (by your own admission), that’s hardly surprising.
the royal family cost the country 350 million a year.
That's just a week's worth of EU money, according to a bus I read once. Bargain!
I don’t see dealing with the issue of monarchy as a priority.
As it’s something you know little about (by your own admission), that’s hardly surprising.
Yup, I know very little about the monarchy and the royal family, but enough to know that the royal prerogative isn't the prerogative of the Queen, and that no government minister/first minister would be arrested for treason if they ignored lawyers lobbying on her behalf. Which appears to be more than some people.
And if you think abolition of the monarchy is a priority, as you appear to be suggesting it is, then it comes as absolutely no surprise to me.
It is precisely what I would expect from those who are obsessed with issues that have no actual bearing on the lives of ordinary people.
This is why I wouldn't have attended an event even if there were any around me
Attendence at a jubilee event is taken as support for the queen
Almost 17 million people took part in community celebrations during the platinum jubilee weekend, according to one poll, as the Queen highlighted the “sense of togetherness” in her thank you message to the country.
a record-breaking 16.75 million people took part in jubilee community events – one in four of the population.
Its in the Gruaniad again
It's in the Gruaniad again
You do realise that the article isn't exactly a damning indictment of the jubilee celebrations don't you TJ? It seems to be suggesting that the whole thing was a worthwhile exercise. Example:
"What’s particularly interesting and a bit surprising is that younger people were more likely to take part in community events than any other age group, which bodes well for the future. The weekend also shows how two awful years of Covid have left the country yearning for opportunities to connect with each other in our communities. Our challenge is to keep that going.”
And as for attending jubilee celebrations being seen as "support for the Queen", I spent 3 hours at a street party and not once did I hear anyone mention the Queen. The idea that I shouldn't have attended simply because some muppet might take it upon themselves to see as support for the Queen is ridiculous.
17 million servile, forelock tugging, stupid, flag shagging, sheeple and little englanders according to some on this thread.
All genuine quotes directed at anyone daring to enjoy a piss up with neighbours or attend a community event this weekend.
The contempt and hostility some have for so many of their fellow citizens for not holding the 'correct' view is sad and depressing.
a record-breaking 16.75 million people took part in jubilee community events – one in four of the population.
I wonder what proportion were sheeple who disapprove of Monarchy but you know, like a bit of cake and a chinwag with their neighbours!
The grauniad coverage has been awful on this IMO. I am somewhat annoyted. always beena very english paper but this is poor IMO
You have been counted as a supporter of the monarchy. If it don't bother you fair enough. 🙂
Its contempt for those who support the monarchy ( I accept Ernies position that he doesn't even if I don't agree)
The jingoistic traits in some are abhorrent to me.
Its not about not holding the correct view. thats a classic empty attack line You attack those who don't follow your "correct" line
You attack those who don’t follow your “correct” line
Who have I attacked and what is my line? I called you out for insulting me and a lot of other forum members with your classy flag shagging little englander comment. I haven't used offensive language or attacked anyone on this thread.
Can I apologise for offending you blokeuptheroad? the comment was not aimed at individuals but on the overall thing
personally I find fawning over imported aristocracy very offensive. I find the symbolism abhorrent.
Edit - we have crossed posts
I find the othering of those who don't want to join in unpleasant.
You have been counted as a supporter of the monarchy. If it don’t bother you fair enough. 🙂
I'm outraged!
So you should be Ernie!
the royal family cost the country 350 million a year.
I'm no royalist, but I'd like to see your working. It's also a bit disingenuous to imply that it's people's taxes that pay for the Royals. You could argue that if we just seized the Crown Estates then that revenue would all go to the public purse, but I'd be a bit uncomfortable with encouraging this government to think that seizing people's property because we disapproved of them a bit was a legitimate exercise.
The Queen’s official expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from The Crown Estate. The Core Sovereign Grant is calculated based on 15% of the income account net surplus of The Crown Estate for the financial year two years previous. The Crown Estate surplus for the financial year 2017-18 amounted to £329.4 million, thereby producing a Core Sovereign Grant of £49.4 million for 2019-20.
TJ thank you. Just to add I agree with this:
I find the othering of those who don’t want to join in unpleasant.
But I have certainly never done that and I don't think anyone on this thread has. I have no issue with anyone who does or doesn't want to join in.
Edit to say, you can count me as a supporter of the monarchy if you like, but I'm not!
Yup, I know very little about the monarchy and the royal family, but enough to know that the royal prerogative isn’t the prerogative of the Queen, and that no government minister/first minister would be arrested for treason if they ignored lawyers lobbying on her behalf.
Did anyone other than you claim either of those things? Some people have tried to explain to you some of the ways that the Monarch and their heir actually shape government policy, but you've ignored their attempts to inform you.
I wonder what proportion were sheeple who disapprove of Monarchy but you know, like a bit of cake
That’ll be me. As per my previous post, I’ll willingly attend anything if there is free food, anything.
I am fairly sure some did on the thread
Its bread and circuses and in the middle of a huge political crisis and desperate times for many the media was just full of fawning over the royals
Bread and circuses
Bread and circuses
And hopefully cake!
I’m no royalist, but
Oh here we go.
Mmmm… cake…
@funkmasterp you have been the voice of (in)sanity on a fractious thread and made me laugh more than once. Keep up the good work!
That’ll be me. As per my previous post, I’ll willingly attend anything if there is free food, anything.
Monster
I just tried to buy a cake for delivery tomorrow... fool! All the fancy cake were eaten this weekend, weren't they.
It’ll be great when the Queen dies (not for her) because there’ll be a somber party with food, but crucially, all the royalists will be too sad to eat any of it. I’ll be there, doing my bit.
Monster
Munch?
the royal family cost the country 350 million a year.
I’m no royalist, but I’d like to see your working.
Last time I heard of this, the number was something like the amount of money the state could make if it owned the assets the crown does and put the profits back into the exchequer, or some similarly dubious reasoning. That's why the estimates vary so much - the numbers can include or exclude whatever you want to justify whatever position you already hold...
It’ll be great when the Queen dies (not for her) because there’ll be a somber party with food, but crucially, all the royalists will be too sad to eat any of it. I’ll be there, doing my bit.
TBH most people will be sat in the corner sobbing over the enforced mourning period when all the tv channels are playing the same tributes on a loop for x weeks and all the streaming services and sports competitions have been closed down as a sign of respect 🙂
Thats it molgrips - plus the cost of all the security and so on.