You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Why – because the parallels with brexit only exist in your mind. 🙂
Or, because that's how analogies work and I'm trying to make people think.
A friend was telling me the other day that his otherwise well-adjusted mother was glad when she heard that a boatload of children had drowned because it was "sickening" that they were coming over here. (This is true, I'll C&P the exact text if anyone wants.) Meanwhile, it's "sickening" that Charlie boy and his extended family have more personal wealth than many countries. Which may be true but it's the same emotive language.
I'm going to leave this thread here for tonight because I'm not well myself. Enjoy.
because that’s how analogies work
No it isn't. There is no comparison between a woman who is, for whatever reason, glad children have drowned, and believing that it is wholly unacceptable for a highly wealthy and privileged family receiving a huge pay rise from UK taxpayers during a cost of living crises. Even if you throw the word "sickening" into the argument in an attempt to connect the two.
For analogies to work the comparisons need to be reasonable.
I hope you feel better soon Cougar.
The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism
I dont suppose you have any evidence for stating this do you?
As you demand from everyone else?
Your arrogance is only matched by your incoherence and hypocrisy.
The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism. Everything that’s wrong in your life is caused by someone else, those [better|worse|different] than you. You have no money, it’s those rich folk in London. You have no money, it’s those poor people coming over here simultaneously working and not working, all two dozen of them in a small boat. You have no money, it’s literally anyone else’s fault bar your own.
Not from me it isn’t. I couldn’t care less about how much money they have. For me it’s the very basic concept of being in a modern world with some, quite frankly insane, weird arse Middle Ages Disney thing cobbled on. It’s some out of touch, old fashioned bullshit with absolutely no place in a civilised society. It’s the antithesis of progressive and just needs to go away.
It is in no way remotely related to immigration. I’d bet my left nut that there’s some substantial crossover between the royal loving flag wavers and those that support the horrendous Rwanda deportation idea.
No. The point of the thread was pointing out they had received a bunch more cash whilst the country is in crisis.
But that's the laughable point I already made.
Charlie never put the country in crisis. Neither did Liz.
Dave, Theresa, Boris, a lettuce and Rishi did. By choice. Because let's not pretend every one of those ****ers made a political decision to take us where we are today.
That's not a case of not being able to look at two issues at once, it's a case of one issue being so ****ing insignificant in the big scheme that it's barely a blip and yet...
As for Brexit comparisons it's absolutely legit. Bad bad bogeyman that's stealing your money/land/sovereignty/raptors. Look, squirrel!
I'm no fan of them and honestly @covert is probably the only one that's put forward a decent argument regarding meritocracy. The rest is just tabloid nonsense that doesn't focus on the real reasons for the inequalities in question.
How on earth is it anything like brexit? No one is saying its a big bad bogey man taking our money. There is no populist campaign in the press being taken up by politicians. there is no racist scaremongering
Its just some of us do not want a royal family - you know republicans. Its perhaps not the most important issue around but its time we lived in a modern democracy not this pseudo democracy we have.
Because the depth of argument and evidence base is the same. At the end of the day a lot (not all but a lot) of the arguments are either emotional or costed as "but Versailles!". Even fat Eck's Book of Dreams had more depth. It suits certain people's agendas that folk get hot under the collar about Charlie costing the nation a fraction of a percent of **** all (if you believe Rone) whilst they syphon and spaff untold billions. As I said, I'm not a royalist by any means but I at least try to be objective. If you're going to make an argument against the status quo then you'd better come prepared with a good case, so far I've seen very little that could be called more than an accounting error (in the grand scheme).
Put it this way, which is going to deliver a bigger benefit to the nation; change of government, electoral reform or abolition of the monarchy?
As for Brexit comparisons it’s absolutely legit.
No its utter drivel and really the exact opposite of the interaction.
With how the royals (especially charlies approach to architecture and farming) harks back to the gilded age just the same as the brexiteers did.
The tedious declarations that patriotism is the simplistic monarchy support and wrapping in the union jack to hide the looting. The casual disregard of laws that bind the rest of us.
We need all 3 and proper electoral reform which includes getting rid of the monarchy and the HOL would be the best for the country long term. We need a proper democracy
The fact we have these remnants of feudalism of which the royal family are a part holds this country back. Unelected lawmakers including the god botherers, Monarch is able to interfere in the legislative process, royal estates are immune from police action over raptor deaths.
I don't think you realise how insidious and all pervading their actual power is and how much they exercise it
I am not bothered by the money. I am bothered by the antidemocratic nature
As am I but there are far greater and more immediate concerns on that list that would better serve our interests. Pick your battles and all that.
I disagree that in the long term that's the battle we should focus on now (not sure if that's what you actually meant, if it's not apologies), it's really not. The biggest hurdle is electoral reform, after that the world's your lobster.
@dissonance I'm doing my best not to make an obvious joke but the substance of your argument is exactly the same. That is to say none. You have shown no evidence in your working, no hard data to back up your claims. Two cheeks of the same arse as they say up here.
Proper electoral reform means an end to the monsrchy.
Some ballast to the “but Versailles!” erm, yes Versailles angle - here in Staffordshire Lord Lichfield's pile, Shugborough, saw record numbers of visitors after his death, largely because parts of the house that had previously been private were opened up to the public. It is impossible to argue that opening up Buckingham Palace fully, especially given the private art collection there, would not result in an immediate boost in visitor numbers. Now whether that boost would be sustained if the Monarchy was as historic as the house is debatable, but certainly “but Versailles!” would suggest so.
As much as i'm a Republican at heart, however, one can't help but view this in the same vein as the 'climate oblivion' thread - it's tinkering with the frayed edges, really. Is it really worth concentrating much effort upon? Millions mean little when billions are in play.
#bemorefrench
In so proud of typing that because I'm drunk...🤪
We chopped a King's head off over a hundred years before the French thought it was cool.
We lacked the Philosophers to see it through - tbf we had them, but they were too busy digging and levelling.
Is it really worth concentrating much effort upon?
Whose effort and how much effort?
That’s not a case of not being able to look at two issues at once, it’s a case of one issue being so **** insignificant in the big scheme that it’s barely a blip and yet…
This argument does not take into account how symbolism can have such a massive impact on society. Impact is not measured in pounds. Without the poster boys and girls of social inequality where might our society go? Had they not Ben around in the first place how might we have developed differently. Clearly we can't know for certain, but I am confident their impact is much begged than £140 million a year (or whatever the hell it is).
Not read the thread im afraid so if I tread on anybody's toes it's not intentional!
I am just forced to remind myself that the Royals love to portray themselves as serving us. We are certainly reminded of it at ceremonies of state when royal commentators are at great lengths to point out their loyal devotion.
Trouble is, I don't see it. Surly even by modern political standards in the UK, it's one of the most carefully constructed gaslighting con-jobs ever perpetuated upon a countries citizens?
We fight for them, die for them, pay for them, wait on them... but apparently they serve us?
It's a really poor joke in my book.
II'll say this though, if Charlie turned down this massive "pay rise" I would honestly rethink my negative opinions on him at least and to a lesser degree the whole institution. I genuinely would. It would be met with similar sentiments by many others I would think, too.
I'm going too assume he will do no such thing though. If that's the case this is wonderfully self defeating in its tone deafness. It will be another nail in the royal families coffin and will, hopefully, speed up their demise.
Just my thoughts anyway.
We fight for them, die for them
Do 'we'? Please go on...
Do ‘we’? Please go on…
A Royal "we" of course in my case.😉... Though my father most definitely did. Fight, not die, fortunately.
so far I’ve seen very little that could be called more than an accounting error (in the grand scheme).
Can you please send me £1000? A K is, like, little more than an accounting error in the grand scheme of things.
It’s not purely a monetary argument. A republic will waste money too.
Probably the downsides of a republic are a lack of focus, ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme. Also, the monarchy is supposed to be impartial, although this is debatable in practice.
On balance, a republic has more advantages for me. More democratic, better distribution of resources and the potential for future reform. The difference is that you have to pursue it every single day. There’s no ‘hanging around’ for the king or aristocrats to decree some worthy activity.
Probably the downsides of a republic are a lack of focus, ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme.
Commemorative plates?
ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme.
Not really when many of us abhor their involvement in politics
Why does it have to be one extreme or another? Step 1 is not to get rid of them, it's to have them pay their own way with the vast reserves of wealth they own. We don't need to pay them to retain all the perceived benefits of having a royal family. We can keep them but spend the money on something more worthwhile without any downside other than maybe a bit of a strop from one old man, win win surely?
Where laws can be overturned by unelected Lords. That’s not democracy
As the Illegal Immigration bill proved this week, that is a total fallacy, the elected House of Commons can and does override the Lords. It was the unelected chamber, for all its faults, that tried to water down the elected governments awful proposals.
Again, lets have debates based on facts please. If we don't know the facts or figures, let's admit it, try and find them, and educate ourselves to raise the level of the debate.
Otherwise it just becomes a circle jerk repeating opinions from our preferred echo chambers. Like the Brexit arguments.
Your arrogance is only matched by your incoherence and hypocrisy.
I've skipped a bit of this overnight - have you provided any evidence to support a debate or is your contribution limited to name calling?
I am just forced to remind myself that the Royals love to portray themselves as serving us. We are certainly reminded of it at ceremonies of state when royal commentators are at great lengths to point out their loyal devotion
Ah the greatest bit of advertising ever - ‘Service’ whoever came up with that one deserved to be made a peer.
Its perhaps not the most important issue around but its time we lived in a modern democracy not this pseudo democracy we have.
What exactly does the moarchy do that prevents us having a modern democracy? Have they blocked the removal of FOTP? Have they driven through laws against protest? Have they stopped the government passing laws to tax them more?
Technically,they have the right and power to do so. But they don't use it because they understand that it's the elected government that make the laws, not the monarchy.
They technically get oversight and influence over legislation - apparently they've used it protect their land owning interests, which is wrong. But royal interference and self interest has done a lot less damage than press self interest, or ministers self interest, or Russian oligarchs self interest.
Some very clever people on here who i respect on so many issues seem to have a mental block about the monarchy.
Some ballast to the “but Versailles!” erm, yes Versailles angle – here in Staffordshire Lord Lichfield’s pile, Shugborough, saw record numbers of visitors after his death, largely because parts of the house that had previously been private were opened up to the public. It is impossible to argue that opening up Buckingham Palace fully, especially given the private art collection there, would not result in an immediate boost in visitor numbers. Now whether that boost would be sustained if the Monarchy was as historic as the house is debatable, but certainly “but Versailles!” would suggest so.
IMHO I think the real Queen is synonymous with Buck Pal and turning it into a museum around her would be a visitor attraction.
I’m not sure that the new King and Queen are that great a visitor pull.
IMHO the Queen was it and I just don’t think they are in the same league as her.
(Not a royalist but I think the length of her unexpected reign from a young un plays a big part)
For me it’s the very basic concept of being in a modern world with some, quite frankly insane, weird arse Middle Ages Disney thing cobbled on. It’s some out of touch, old fashioned bullshit with absolutely no place in a civilised society. It’s the antithesis of progressive and just needs to go away.
But enough about religion, what about the monarchy?
How on earth is it anything like brexit?
...
Its just some of us do not want
There you go.
I don’t think you realise how insidious and all pervading their actual power is and how much they exercise it
Examples please. Any exercises which affected you personally and detrimentally would be particularly insightful.
I am not bothered by the money. I am bothered by the antidemocratic nature
Then you're in the wrong country. From the crown through the HoL via the Civil Service down to public referendums, with a side order of FPTP, our current implementation of "democracy" is a farce.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
Interfering with the law making process. Its all secret so we do not know for sure but we do know that Scots law has had to be changed due to this. We also know its used to hide wealth.
Killing of raptors on royal estates. the police have to ask permission to investigate which is either refused or delayed allowing criminals to escape justice
Then you’re in the wrong country.
NOpe - I'm in the right one. Scotland which has the capacity to become and independent european democracy.
Any self-respecting adult should be a citizen not a subject. Philosophers? Tom Paine dealt with these arguments very amusingly and succinctly in The Rights of Man 1791 (?)
Interfering with the law making process.
That article says "vetting," not interfering, or changing, or vetoing. The queen was the head of state, this is literally what she's supposed to do. Honestly (exponentially so given the current government) I wish this happened more often. I'd have done the dance of joy if Liz has told Other Liz to shove brexit up her arse.
The usually robust Guardian reporting suggests that they uncovered four laws which she'd asked to be amended for her own personal gain.
Its all secret so we do not know for sure
So you don't know, then.
We also know its used to hide wealth.
Do we?
Killing of raptors on royal estates.
This is worth a read.
But enough about religion, what about the monarchy?
I would have no qualms with ditching that too. Like the monarchy it’s a hangover from an older time that has no place in the modern world.
Any self-respecting adult should be a citizen not a subject
Do you feel like a subject? I was brought up in a Forces family, been involved in Scouting one way or another for 45 years, been a civil servant for 20 years now, never thought of myself as a subject. It's just a word.
What have they done to you to make you feel that way?
Subject? Having to pay for an unelected sovereign. Prince George is 10 today. Odds on he'll go on to Eton and will have the option of Oxbridge even with low grades (like his grandpa) and eventually king, leading a life of unparalled privilege and influence simply by an accident of birth. Monarchy is the ultimate symbol of social immobility and medieval reactionary nonsense with a load of vastly expensive (largely made-up) pageantry so you know they are different (used to be done with sumptuary laws). The only person worthy of knee bending is George Floyd.
The queen was the head of state, this is literally what she’s supposed to do.
Nonsense - even the fact she had the right to preaprove laws and to have changed ones she didn't like was kept secret and this is not a function of a normal ceremonial head of state. YOU even accept she had laws altered for personal gain.
That article about the birds of Sandringham makes my point - and its the same at Balmoral which IIRC has grouse moors and where raptors have disappeared
So we have examples of the queen interfering in law, hindering criminal investigations and you think this is acceptable?
Didn't the queen ask for equal opps employment legislation not to be applied to the monarchy?
NOpe – I’m in the right one. Scotland which has the capacity to become and independent european democracy.
For me it’s the very basic concept of being in a modern world with some, quite frankly insane, weird arse Middle Ages Disney thing cobbled on. It’s some out of touch, old fashioned bullshit with absolutely no place in a civilised society. It’s the antithesis of progressive and just needs to go away.
Didn’t the queen ask for equal opps employment legislation not to be applied to the monarchy?
I don't know. Did she?
Probably the downsides of a republic are a lack of focus, ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme.
Does it? I see no evidence to suggest the rf provide anything of the sort. If anything they promote an us and them view where the serfs fund thier lavish lifestyle built on the proceeds of historic theft of land and resources
Subject? Having to pay for an unelected sovereign.
How much?
Genuine question, how much have you paid?
What's the unelected civil service cost you? Or the unelected house of lords?
Prince George is 10 today. [etc etc]
And? So what. I don't even know who Prince George is, that's how influential he is on my daily life.
Someone is more privileged than you or I, well holy ****, quick, ring the media. Meanwhile the homeless bloke in London I spoke with last week (Kevin, he gave me a donut, lovely bloke) is probably thinking of you "look at that entitled prick over there with his 'house,' I'd be getting more handouts if it wasn't for him."
The only person worthy of knee bending is George Floyd.
Show me anyone who is 'knee bending' outside of recieving honours that they're allowed to refuse. (And funerals and suchlike)
Yet more nonsense emotive hyperbole. Funny isn't it, how not that long ago we were arguing about klans like Leave.EU making up shit and the great unwashed sucking it down wholesale, people like Daz leaping out complaining that we were allegedly calling them all idiots. Yet as soon as stories align with our beliefs, logic and fact-checking goes out of the window for the intellectuals just as quickly.
Interfering with the law making process.
The fact that the rf are specifically exempt from inheritance tax shows interference in the law making process unless you believe Parliament thought it was a good idea all on its own
TJ,
even the fact she had the right to preaprove laws and to have changed ones she didn’t like was kept secret and this is not a function of a normal ceremonial head of state.
Did the revelation of that "secret" come as a surprise to you? It surpised me that she didn't.
YOU even accept she had laws altered for personal gain.
I haven't accepted any such thing, I have no way of knowing. I'm merely taking the Guardian report at face value in lieu of any further information which I would cheerfully welcome.
So we have examples of the queen interfering in law, hindering criminal investigations and you think this is acceptable?
I think she's dead. The rest of that sentence is emotive allegation.
If you want to know whether I think it's acceptable that she "interfered in law" then you're going to have to explain which laws you mean and what she's changed to our detriment; or what "hindering" you're referring to. That would help me form an opinion as to whether our head of state was acting in an "acceptable" state-headiness kind of way or not.
Politicians do all of that all of the time, demonstrably and (hopefully) well-reported, yet this seems acceptable to everyone? Having checks and balances in there to stop them going power-mad seems somewhat sensible to me, the sovereign doesn't interfere enough to my mind. Every company needs a CEO.
The fact that the rf are specifically exempt from inheritance tax shows interference in the law making process unless you believe Parliament thought it was a good idea all on its own
There's that "belief" again. I believe in Spider-Man. Got any facts?
And in any case. Again. So what? Are you worse off?
Hindering - and covering for criminals - the guardian article you linked showed it. Investigations into criminal conduct on royal estates are regularly blocked and the crimes covered up.
Interference with the law - again in the other article you linked. These things are proven
So we have our unelected head of state interfering with democratically created law.
Which law?
We have them covering for criminals on the estates.
When? Who? Where?
You think this is acceptable?
What is "this"?
I think the monarchy is an established part of the English legal process. Whether I think it's acceptable or not is neither here nor there and it's not clear to me whether you're arguing about their actual actions or the very concept of them existing. I rather suspect the latter.
Read that Grauniad article again. I refrained from commenting because I didn't want to lead discussions, but there's a lot of probably likely but unproven misdemeanours going on there along with a few prosecutions. It sounds also like there's a need for a proper investigation into the management of... Sandringham, was it? But some nobhead gamekeeper shot an endangered bird so let's stick the queen's head on a pole is something of a leap, it needs looking into and if the Queen (etc) is culpable then throw the book at them.
Stop.
Making.
Shit.
Up.
It is unhelpful, it's a dead cat. If there needs to be a criminal investigation then let's push for that, I'll be with you 100%. Remember the four Fs, First Find the Blummin' Facts.
My word, such self-righteous obsequiousness. Yep, if the politicians are saying 'there's no money left' (not that I believe them) at the same time as letting off one of the richest families in the land from inheritance tax then yes, we're all worse off.
the guardian article you linked showed it.
The Guardian article alleged it.
These things are proven
From that article,
linked
alleged
mysterious
investigated
appears
suspicious
impossible to investigate
facing questions
no further action
assertions based on little or no substantive evidence
no evidence of a crime
questioned
no arrests or charges
etc etc, it goes on. Yet I'm not seeing "proven" anywhere other than a prosecution for a gamekeeper harming an owl.
And sure, of course, it all sounds dodgy as hell. But "sounds dodgy as hell" does not secure convictions, that is not how our legal system works. One could, likely fairly legitimately, suggest that all this a failing of policing or investigative powers. But, well, that's a failing of policing or investigative powers. If there is an unresolved case still to be investigated then let's empower them to go back and investigate it rather than filling in the blanks with words like "proven" when it's far from anything of the sort.
My word, such self-righteous obsequiousness.
My word, more unnecessary ad hom.
if the politicians are saying ‘there’s no money left’ (not that I believe them) at the same time as letting off one of the richest families in the land from inheritance tax
I'd no idea about this, but it was easily googlable. Literally the first hit:
In exchange for this public support, The King surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending.
...
the King voluntarily pays income and capital gains tax, alongside inheritance tax to the extent described in paragraphs 1.9 and 1.10 in the Memorandum.
The Memorandum is here for further reading)
yes, we’re all worse off.
By how much?
If I'm out of pocket by thousands a year then we have a clear problem. If it's tuppence a decade then we're into 'small boats' waters again.
But you don't know, do you.
So if my parents were wealthy enough I'd pay inheritance tax but HM doesn't.
It's due on 29 Acacia Ave (a privately owned house) but not Balmoral (a privately owned estate). Seems fair difference is HM doesn't have to pay tax but, for the sake of appearances pays some.
Oh and I don't voluntarily pay the taxes.
Nicely set up in paragraph 1.18 so no one will ever know if they actually will pay what they say.
the King voluntarily pays income and capital gains tax,
Why is it voluntary for him? Surely he should be subject to the same taxation legislation as the rest of us.
Nice to fantasize on, but this is the establishment, and it isn't ever ever going o change.
Why is it voluntary for him?
Because he's the king.
It's explained in the link I posted above. You might not agree with it - I certainly don't - but here we are.
Which law?
QE2 vetted about thousand, gave herself immunity ot over a ahundred and had many modified before giivng royal ascent. Google it, Cougar.
You've got your head in the sand - the facts are there and just need the most obvious key words in Google to find.
I used to prosecute industrials, farmers and institutions for polluting water, we didn't go for the employee who opened the valve or whatever we went for the top, the CEO, the landowner the head of the organisation because they are the ones ultimately responsible not the employee (gamekeeper).
cougar - I don't get why you're argueing so hard about stuff that is well known and public knowledge
Because they're woolly concepts. It's probably well known and public knowledge that brown people are coming over here and stealing our jobs.
I've already shown you here that your "facts" aren't, so... /shrug
And in any case, I'm not saying you're wrong. It may well be true. All I'm saying is demonstrate it rather than claim it.
You’ve got your head in the sand – the facts are there and just need the most obvious key words in Google to find.
I cannot possibly have a wrong opinion when I don't have an opinion.
"Google it" - no, you google it and then link back to what your asserting. We're not mind readers, I can't possibly google what you're thinking.
This entire thread is:
1) "We should abolish the monarchy because I don't like them"
2) claims, allegations and conjecture at tabloid levels
3) a total lack of facts or evidence to back up 2)
4) personal attacks and insults rather than counter-arguments when I point out 2) and 3)
5) exactly like every other 'royal' based thread
6) exactly what I predicted on the first page.
Its not just the king cougar, its the entire ruling elite.
Having a king only reinforces that working class are 2nd class citizens.
Just watching a vid with Jacob Rees Mogg in it. He has a personal fortune of £100m. (Charles is worth some £1.5b) How can people who are completely removed from the every day lives of the citizens of the UK represent them.
Simple answer is they dont. They represent themselves and those they deem their peers, ie other immensely wealthy people.
King Charles reinforces this division of working and ruling classes. Yet other countries who have removed their previous rulers-kings/queens and put their faith wholly in the people, live, in comparison to the UK, a utopia. With good health service, high wages and a high standard of living.
King Charles doesn't care about you or whether you live or die in poverty or pain, he cares only for himself.
I don't know who is more pathetic, us or them.
Whilst I don't disagree, if you're holding up a candle to differentiate between Charles and Jacob, I'd suggest that your ire is misdirected on a number of levels.
Indeed, cross out Charles and write Jacob on your post there, does it scan better or worse?
King Charles doesn’t care about you or whether you live or die in poverty or pain, he cares only for himself.
Is that different from most of the rest us us?
Whether we should have a monarchy (classed as non democratic) should be decided democratically, via a vote.
If the majority of people want a monarchy then that's what the country should have surely?
Imagine the result would be in favour of keeping monarchy but probably fairly close where almost as many people are pissed off as happy but that is democracy. After that you just need to decide if you wan to live in a country that wants a monarchy or if it really isn't that important to you after all.
I hate the monarchy and all it stands for but I would not be going anywhere.
And in any case, I’m not saying you’re wrong. It may well be true. All I’m saying is demonstrate it rather than claim it.
Two Guardian articles you linked to support what I have said.
Is that different from most of the rest us us?
Yes.
5) exactly like every other ‘royal’ based thread
Exactly like every other thread. The two sides can generally be put into "obscure" and "enlightened" and the various protagonists don't need many Venn circles to group them. See:
Remain versus Leave
Republican versus royalist
"art house" "pretentious" versus proud to be a pleb
EV versus diesel (possibly remapped with EGR removed to smoke cyclists)
Insulation and heat pump versus gas/oil central heating
Train versus plane
Mediterranean diet /sensible eating versus latest fad diet
Woke versus misogyny and racism (usually thinly veiled to avoid ban)
Courteous driving within the law versus making progress
Renewable versus fossil and nuclear
Women are people versus objects and my partner/ex is evil and trying to fleece me
Immigrants are human beings that contribute to society versus send 'em back
Dogs
Positive contribution to society versus nihilism
It's STW, it goes round and round in circles. Some people have changed a little over the years, some for the better, some getting more entrenched and bitter. It's a long running soap, some have been written out of the script and some gone on to better things but most continue playing their stereotypical roles.
It still makes more interesting reading than anything else on the Anglo-Saxon Internet, find me something better and I'll piss off. 😉
Yep, if the politicians are saying ‘there’s no money left’ (not that I believe them) at the same time as letting off one of the richest families in the land from inheritance tax then yes, we’re all worse off.
So the politicians are letting off the royal family its the royal family's fault? Its clear tightening their tax affairs would be popular, so why wouldn't the politicians take action? Maybe to keep this particular target in the culture war going and distract from the politicians failures?
I'm very much with Cougar. They cost me pennies, personally, it doesn’t affect me personally. Other opinions are available and valid. The legal and tax evasion they are being accused of are no worse than many businesses or high profile individuals.
Theres a lot of allegations being made, but little evidence or figures to back them up, which is what Cougar and I have pointed out. Its fine to just object to the monarchy on principle, but just say that.
Every time I see this thread I think of Elvis.
You don't think the unethical land practises on their estates including routine killing of raptors has no effect on us? It does on me
Some evidence to back up my claims:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent
I find the framing if this quite bizarre. So you're telling me the king had a little known power to.... wield power, to rule? .... Wow that's an eye opener 🤣
Yet other countries who have removed their previous rulers-kings/queens and put their faith wholly in the people, live, in comparison to the UK, a utopia. With good health service, high wages and a high standard of living.
For example, the Scandinavian countries us Scots aspire to?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_royal_family
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_royal_family
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_royal_family
You don’t think the unethical land practises on their estates including routine killing of raptors has no effect on us? It does on me
While I condemn such actions, it actually doesn’t directly affect me, no. I don't live nearby, I don’t visit, the raptor population near me is going nicely thank you.
Getting rid of the monarchy probably wouldn’t end that practice, sadly.
It is therefore quite far down on tne list of things that piss me off and impact my physical and mental health.
<p>Ok, I was wrong about HoL having the veto power over HoC. They should still be elected, IMO.</p><p>I am quite happy to admit opposing the monarchy on purely ideological grounds. I really believe we could do better with a republic and this is not based on facts.</p><p>The point is, we don’t know what a republic would be like. What I do want is democratic representation, devolved power and a change from hierarchy to organisation.</p>
While I condemn such actions
...
Getting rid of the monarchy probably wouldn’t end that practice
It could potentially make it worse.
"Rogue gamekeepers are shooting protected species, I know, let's get rid of the management!" In this scenario, getting rid of the monarchy might be a positive step, if you're going to replace it with something better. What might that look like then? Pledging allegiance to your new President Chuck? What if the only thing preventing those land managers from mullering everything living is actually 'interference' from the Crown? It's not like we don't have any other global examples of mankind fishing/hunting to extinction. Dodoburger and fries, sir?
Same shit, different day, us proles are always going to be lorded over. All that changes is whether we call them Lords or not. Even in more enlightened which have a direct democracy they don't, not really, because those in charge still have a casting vote. Maybe DazH was right all along and we should just burn the lot and go feudal.
onehundredthidiot
Full MemberIt’s due on 29 Acacia Ave (a privately owned house) but not Balmoral (a privately owned estate). Seems fair difference is HM doesn’t have to pay tax but, for the sake of appearances pays some.
Onehundredthidiot is Bananaman.