Jacksgranda Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 10 hours ago, McQuade said: Same station, different channel idiot. Different channel, different programmes, Celtic supporter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 12 hours ago, McQuade said: And Tax payers State TV has been cancelled tonight because some Royal guy got engaged, so sit back and listen to why our parasite tax dodging racist bigoted prehistoric superiors are amazing. You said Tax payers TV had been cancelled That implies all BBC programmes were cancelled. 3 minutes ago, McQuade said: Yes Moron, but you claimed BBC 1 and 2 were different Stations, not Channels...Aberdeen Supporter. No I didn't 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, McQuade said: ...and Goodbye. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out. 14 minutes ago, McQuade said: Yes Moron, but you claimed BBC 1 and 2 were different Stations, not Channels...Aberdeen Supporter. No I didn't 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Are our democratically elected representatives in the House of Commons any less corrupt or incompetent than the clowns in Buckingham Palace or the House of Lords? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Think of the job losses in the commemorative plate and fridge magnet industry. When my pal bought his house from the previous owner the guy had left some possessions in the attic. My pal and I went up to see what it was and to let him know. He had over a hundred commemorative plates. About 20 was of Diana. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 When my pal bought his house from the previous owner the guy had left some possessions in the attic. My pal and I went up to see what it was and to let him know. He had over a hundred commemorative plates. About 20 was of Diana. Josef Fritzel cousin? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Don’t the monarchy cost us (the average common taxpayer) next to f**k all anyway? Leave them to get on with the f**k all they do and let absolute roasters come and stand outside houses they might or might not be in I say. No palaces etc. to stand outside then these roasters might end up in my way Did the last wedding not cost the tax payers £30m? Was £20m it cost, in terms of police over time and extra numbers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 17 hours ago, Granny Danger said: In the foreseeable future we will have an independent Scotland and will lose the monarchy by default. Win/win. England will never ditch the monarchy and are welcome to them. I thought the deal was we get King Alec Salmond the 1st? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Hamish Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Let's cut to the chase, do we get a day aff? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee_62 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 17 hours ago, chomp my root said: The monarchy is only half the problem, an unelected upper house that contains representatives of the various brands of sky fairy with their own agenda is hardly the cornerstone of democracy. Its a fecked up archaic system and I've not heard a single valid argument to keep it. Got to agree with an earlier poster - most of the issues we face today have been driven by the political agendas of our elected representatives not the monarchy or the upper house. (albeit that's no reason not to look at reforming either of those areas) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 17 minutes ago, dee_62 said: Got to agree with an earlier poster - most of the issues we face today have been driven by the political agendas of our elected representatives not the monarchy or the upper house. (albeit that's no reason not to look at reforming either of those areas) Aye, but more than a little of that is driven by the insane setup we currently have, which basically removes many of the checks and balances most governmental systems use. Our system is technically divided between the executive and legislature, with the latter further divided between the lower, law making house and the upper revising chamber - but in practice it doesn't work that way. The unelected nature of two of the three strands of the British government demolish their legitimacy and secures all power in the hands of whoever has the majority in the third, elected chamber. Thus a British prime minister is far more powerful than any of their western contemporaries. Able to modify and change any number of laws, regulations and institutions on a whim, a one seat majority and a decent parliamentary whip. The upper house is loath now, by custom and practice to really demolish a bad law coming from the Commons as the Lords are more than aware that they lack legitimacy. They might tamper around the edges but they provide no constitutional counter balance. The Monarch of course is nothing more than a figure head: Parliament promises to do whatever the Monarch asks, so long as the Monarch promises never to ask for anything. This system really doesn't help in terms of inspiring debate, or helping our elected representatives grow a spine. There are no alternate seats of power, no centres that opposition can rally around. A hostile congress can blunt a president's desires, even if they are of the same party: The party transcend the one branch of government, the one individual, but over here the only way to get on is to buckle down. greater power concentrated in a small number of people around one individual in the office of the Prime Minister. Our elected representatives may have the moral fibre and approximate shape of Jelly, but the system molds them that way, to some extent. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ2 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Did the last wedding not cost the tax payers £30m? Was £20m it cost, in terms of police over time and extra numbers Estimated population of around 65m. So let’s say it cost fifty pence each? Can’t say I’m worried about fifty pence. I’m no fan of the royal family. I just genuinely don’t care enough either way to get worked up the way some, on both sides, do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ2 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Let's cut to the chase, do we get a day aff? Apparently not, so the whole wedding is a non-event. I’ll stick to concerning myself with things that concern me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, dee_62 said: Got to agree with an earlier poster - most of the issues we face today have been driven by the political agendas of our elected representatives not the monarchy or the upper house. (albeit that's no reason not to look at reforming either of those areas) I don't disagree but its a separate issue. We're having a bitch about the unelected freeloaders rather than the elected ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Estimated population of around 65m. So let’s say it cost fifty pence each? Can’t say I’m worried about fifty pence. I’m no fan of the royal family. I just genuinely don’t care enough either way to get worked up the way some, on both sides, do. Worth remembering that it's same funds being used for security, that theyre still refusing to use to replace cladding on high rise 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ2 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Worth remembering that it's same funds being used for security, that theyre still refusing to use to replace cladding on high rise Fair and valid point. I’d much rather see the money go to good use, but unfortunately that won’t happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I don't really think finances should come into play. We're talking about something so miniscule to the nations coffers and arguing that they cost relatively little is also an argument that would be in place whatever system you have. We're not going to be poor losing the monarchy.It is a matter of principle to say though that it is not somebody's birthright to rule. It enshrines the idea that privilege rules and then is also cruel on pretty much demoting somebody's freedom (I'd be pretty surprised if there isn't a mentally destructive element to having your life publicised from day 1).Elected head of state every eight years with mostly ceremonial powers and slight allowances to voice opinion and work with government on special issues like preservation of the environment. Far reaching transparency laws to mitigate against special interests. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Just take a moment and imagine actually being a royalist though.Just imagine it: let it sink in.You'd have to be a full-blown moron. An unremittingly stupidly gibbering shitwit.You'd be worthy only of pity. And a little hate, obviously. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 53 minutes ago, harry94 said: I don't really think finances should come into play. We're talking about something so miniscule to the nations coffers and arguing that they cost relatively little is also an argument that would be in place whatever system you have. We're not going to be poor losing the monarchy.It is a matter of principle to say though that it is not somebody's birthright to rule. It enshrines the idea that privilege rules and then is also cruel on pretty much demoting somebody's freedom (I'd be pretty surprised if there isn't a mentally destructive element to having your life publicised from day 1). Elected head of state every eight years with mostly ceremonial powers and slight allowances to voice opinion and work with government on special issues like preservation of the environment. Far reaching transparency laws to mitigate against special interests. Spot on and well put. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 A wonderful institution which epitomises the traditions and prestige of this great country. The envy of the world. God save the Queen [emoji106] -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.