Now that is a "horse" of a different colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
Printable View
Now that is a "horse" of a different colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
Great so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
A leader of a country should really be representing the people that voted for him. The Royal family is irrelevant in that regard. If the Queen was really about representing the people then she should have spoken up for the majority who were against the war in Iraq. Likewise, she should have spoken up against the poll tax and all sorts of other attacks against her so called people, but she doesn't. She stands either mute or uttering inane pleasantries. That is because she is one of the elite and likes her position as chief benefits scrounger of the UK. It's all well and good saying that she is one of us, but that is blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboGreat so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
She and her lot are relics of a bygone and more inbred period in our history and I would like to see them consigned to history. People pay quite happily to see Buckingham palace for the structure that it is. Move the Queen into a 3 bedroom bungalow and the country would be a better place. Only then can she truly say that she is one of us.
How is she a benefits scrounger? First off, she works for her money. Secondly she has worked 20 years longer than ordinary people have to, and is still serving this country past her 85th year.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesA leader of a country should really be representing the people that voted for him. The Royal family is irrelevant in that regard. If the Queen was really about representing the people then she should have spoken up for the majority who were against the war in Iraq. Likewise, she should have spoken up against the poll tax and all sorts of other attacks against her so called people, but she doesn't. She stands either mute or uttering inane pleasantries. That is because she is one of the elite and likes her position as chief benefits scrounger of the UK. It's all well and good saying that she is one of us, but that is blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboGreat so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
She and her lot are relics of a bygone and more inbred period in our history and I would like to see them consigned to history. People pay quite happily to see Buckingham palace for the structure that it is. Move the Queen into a 3 bedroom bungalow and the country would be a better place. Only then can she truly say that she is one of us.
Thirdly she MAKES us money. When you are talking about how much the Royal Family cost us what you really mean is how much of the profits we get from having them are we having to share with them.
The crown estate pays more to the taxpayer each year than the queen receives from them, so annually we owe her AND she works on our behalf.
How can you not understand this? She is the best value for money employee in the whole of Britain! Who else would rent out over £6.6 billion pounds of worth of property and then give all the profits to the taxpayer?
She is a benefits scrounger because the government arbitrarily hands over money to her and her family. Those are benefits. You say she works for it, but any person on benefits would likely be willing to dress up and shake hands for the same extraordinary benefits too. Heck, she doesn't even cook her own meals. It's a cushty kind of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHow is she a benefits scrounger? First off, she works for her money. Secondly she has worked 20 years longer than ordinary people have to, and is still serving this country past her 85th year.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesA leader of a country should really be representing the people that voted for him. The Royal family is irrelevant in that regard. If the Queen was really about representing the people then she should have spoken up for the majority who were against the war in Iraq. Likewise, she should have spoken up against the poll tax and all sorts of other attacks against her so called people, but she doesn't. She stands either mute or uttering inane pleasantries. That is because she is one of the elite and likes her position as chief benefits scrounger of the UK. It's all well and good saying that she is one of us, but that is blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboGreat so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
She and her lot are relics of a bygone and more inbred period in our history and I would like to see them consigned to history. People pay quite happily to see Buckingham palace for the structure that it is. Move the Queen into a 3 bedroom bungalow and the country would be a better place. Only then can she truly say that she is one of us.
Thirdly she MAKES us money. When you are talking about how much the Royal Family cost us what you really mean is how much of the profits we get from having them are we having to share with them.
The crown estate pays more to the taxpayer each year than the queen receives from them, so annually we owe her AND she works on our behalf.
How can you not understand this? She is the best value for money employee in the whole of Britain! Who else would rent out over £6.6 billion pounds of worth of property and then give all the profits to the taxpayer?
As I say, stick her in a 3 bedroom bungalow and give her a government pension to live on. Treat her like everyone else gets treated. Otherwise, let them stand alone and recieve absolutely no state support.
It's not money arbitrarily handed over! She receives an annual income in exchange for the crown estate being managed by the government with the profits going to the treasury. WE benefit as much as the Royal Family does.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesShe is a benefits scrounger because the government arbitrarily hands over money to her and her family. Those are benefits. You say she works for it, but any person on benefits would likely be willing to dress up and shake hands for the same extraordinary benefits too. Heck, she doesn't even cook her own meals. It's a cushty kind of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHow is she a benefits scrounger? First off, she works for her money. Secondly she has worked 20 years longer than ordinary people have to, and is still serving this country past her 85th year.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesA leader of a country should really be representing the people that voted for him. The Royal family is irrelevant in that regard. If the Queen was really about representing the people then she should have spoken up for the majority who were against the war in Iraq. Likewise, she should have spoken up against the poll tax and all sorts of other attacks against her so called people, but she doesn't. She stands either mute or uttering inane pleasantries. That is because she is one of the elite and likes her position as chief benefits scrounger of the UK. It's all well and good saying that she is one of us, but that is blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboGreat so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
She and her lot are relics of a bygone and more inbred period in our history and I would like to see them consigned to history. People pay quite happily to see Buckingham palace for the structure that it is. Move the Queen into a 3 bedroom bungalow and the country would be a better place. Only then can she truly say that she is one of us.
Thirdly she MAKES us money. When you are talking about how much the Royal Family cost us what you really mean is how much of the profits we get from having them are we having to share with them.
The crown estate pays more to the taxpayer each year than the queen receives from them, so annually we owe her AND she works on our behalf.
How can you not understand this? She is the best value for money employee in the whole of Britain! Who else would rent out over £6.6 billion pounds of worth of property and then give all the profits to the taxpayer?
As I say, stick her in a 3 bedroom bungalow and give her a government pension to live on. Treat her like everyone else gets treated. Otherwise, let them stand alone and recieve absolutely no state support.
And what do you mean by 'move her into a nice three bedroom bungalow'?
You seem to have not even a basic understanding of history. The crown estate properties belong to the crown. Not the government, not the taxpayer. They have been in the royal family's possessions since 1066 and therefore they have the most solid legal claim for their property of any property owners in the country.
You, the great opposer of the Israeali's who 'steal' Palestinian homes by buying them off them would actually support the theft by force, of the entire Royal Family's wealth and property. You would like our government to carry out a flagrant violation of international law to suit your bigoted and prejudicial ideals?
Surely not....
I have a very firm understanding of history and of the evolution of the monarchy and it is primarily for those reasons that I want it out. Historically speaking it has been a crony system where the so called ruler would validate his claim to the throne through bizarre talk of divine rule. It was a corrupt system whereby the elite kept a grip on power through connections and influence which was largely at the expense of the vast majority of the population. Nobody can afford to become sentimental about what a Royal family has meant historically speaking. It is an evil and unfair system which is on a par with the regimes of Kim Jong Il and Gadaffi. Anyone who stood in their way was wiped out without a due nod to democratic processes. It is a great shame that Britain never swept them out once and for all when we had the chance. Just because the Queen isn't butchering people today does not mean that I have to respect what the Royal family is. I despise it both in terms of history and I despise it in terms of what it has come to represent today. A monarchy is firmly against all democratic principles and there is no way to escape that. Would it be okay if Gaddafi were to say 'Okay, we shall no longer kill any of you, but we should keep our estates and in name still be head of state. Have your democracy, but let me keep this title. Please!". No, people would laugh and say "but you are a tyrant who commited terrible acts". We seem to sweep that under the floor with the royal family. Anyone who appreciates history knows that the Royal family has commited great crimes against the British people, and that alone without the arguments about democracy should be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboIt's not money arbitrarily handed over! She receives an annual income in exchange for the crown estate being managed by the government with the profits going to the treasury. WE benefit as much as the Royal Family does.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesShe is a benefits scrounger because the government arbitrarily hands over money to her and her family. Those are benefits. You say she works for it, but any person on benefits would likely be willing to dress up and shake hands for the same extraordinary benefits too. Heck, she doesn't even cook her own meals. It's a cushty kind of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHow is she a benefits scrounger? First off, she works for her money. Secondly she has worked 20 years longer than ordinary people have to, and is still serving this country past her 85th year.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesA leader of a country should really be representing the people that voted for him. The Royal family is irrelevant in that regard. If the Queen was really about representing the people then she should have spoken up for the majority who were against the war in Iraq. Likewise, she should have spoken up against the poll tax and all sorts of other attacks against her so called people, but she doesn't. She stands either mute or uttering inane pleasantries. That is because she is one of the elite and likes her position as chief benefits scrounger of the UK. It's all well and good saying that she is one of us, but that is blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboGreat so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
She and her lot are relics of a bygone and more inbred period in our history and I would like to see them consigned to history. People pay quite happily to see Buckingham palace for the structure that it is. Move the Queen into a 3 bedroom bungalow and the country would be a better place. Only then can she truly say that she is one of us.
Thirdly she MAKES us money. When you are talking about how much the Royal Family cost us what you really mean is how much of the profits we get from having them are we having to share with them.
The crown estate pays more to the taxpayer each year than the queen receives from them, so annually we owe her AND she works on our behalf.
How can you not understand this? She is the best value for money employee in the whole of Britain! Who else would rent out over £6.6 billion pounds of worth of property and then give all the profits to the taxpayer?
As I say, stick her in a 3 bedroom bungalow and give her a government pension to live on. Treat her like everyone else gets treated. Otherwise, let them stand alone and recieve absolutely no state support.
And what do you mean by 'move her into a nice three bedroom bungalow'?
You seem to have not even a basic understanding of history. The crown estate properties belong to the crown. Not the government, not the taxpayer. They have been in the royal family's possessions since 1066 and therefore they have the most solid legal claim for their property of any property owners in the country.
You, the great opposer of the Israeali's who 'steal' Palestinian homes by buying them off them would actually support the theft by force, of the entire Royal Family's wealth and property. You would like our government to carry out a flagrant violation of international law to suit your bigoted and prejudicial ideals?
Surely not....
My argument is a simple one, if the royal family wants to exist then it should do so in a private capacity. Let them keep their lands, but they should pay for the upkeep themselves or else allow tourist money to subsidise them, but otherwise I want them out of all state affairs. If they come upon hard times then let them sell their properties. It is absurd that these people are still able to exert such an influence in a so called advanced democratic society. They are a relic of an awful multi-century period of rule, and like I say, it is a great shame that they weren't booted much sooner.
It is prejudiced to defend a set family being given privilege over and above all other families on the back of a despotic centuries long period of rule. That to me is the serious crime.
Ok so we abolish the monarchy but they keep all their property and land.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have a very firm understanding of history and of the evolution of the monarchy and it is primarily for those reasons that I want it out. Historically speaking it has been a crony system where the so called ruler would validate his claim to the throne through bizarre talk of divine rule. It was a corrupt system whereby the elite kept a grip on power through connections and influence which was largely at the expense of the vast majority of the population. Nobody can afford to become sentimental about what a Royal family has meant historically speaking. It is an evil and unfair system which is on a par with the regimes of Kim Jong Il and Gadaffi. Anyone who stood in their way was wiped out without a due nod to democratic processes. It is a great shame that Britain never swept them out once and for all when we had the chance. Just because the Queen isn't butchering people today does not mean that I have to respect what the Royal family is. I despise it both in terms of history and I despise it in terms of what it has come to represent today. A monarchy is firmly against all democratic principles and there is no way to escape that. Would it be okay if Gaddafi were to say 'Okay, we shall no longer kill any of you, but we should keep our estates and in name still be head of state. Have your democracy, but let me keep this title. Please!". No, people would laugh and say "but you are a tyrant who commited terrible acts". We seem to sweep that under the floor with the royal family. Anyone who appreciates history knows that the Royal family has commited great crimes against the British people, and that alone without the arguments about democracy should be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboIt's not money arbitrarily handed over! She receives an annual income in exchange for the crown estate being managed by the government with the profits going to the treasury. WE benefit as much as the Royal Family does.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesShe is a benefits scrounger because the government arbitrarily hands over money to her and her family. Those are benefits. You say she works for it, but any person on benefits would likely be willing to dress up and shake hands for the same extraordinary benefits too. Heck, she doesn't even cook her own meals. It's a cushty kind of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHow is she a benefits scrounger? First off, she works for her money. Secondly she has worked 20 years longer than ordinary people have to, and is still serving this country past her 85th year.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesA leader of a country should really be representing the people that voted for him. The Royal family is irrelevant in that regard. If the Queen was really about representing the people then she should have spoken up for the majority who were against the war in Iraq. Likewise, she should have spoken up against the poll tax and all sorts of other attacks against her so called people, but she doesn't. She stands either mute or uttering inane pleasantries. That is because she is one of the elite and likes her position as chief benefits scrounger of the UK. It's all well and good saying that she is one of us, but that is blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboGreat so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
She and her lot are relics of a bygone and more inbred period in our history and I would like to see them consigned to history. People pay quite happily to see Buckingham palace for the structure that it is. Move the Queen into a 3 bedroom bungalow and the country would be a better place. Only then can she truly say that she is one of us.
Thirdly she MAKES us money. When you are talking about how much the Royal Family cost us what you really mean is how much of the profits we get from having them are we having to share with them.
The crown estate pays more to the taxpayer each year than the queen receives from them, so annually we owe her AND she works on our behalf.
How can you not understand this? She is the best value for money employee in the whole of Britain! Who else would rent out over £6.6 billion pounds of worth of property and then give all the profits to the taxpayer?
As I say, stick her in a 3 bedroom bungalow and give her a government pension to live on. Treat her like everyone else gets treated. Otherwise, let them stand alone and recieve absolutely no state support.
And what do you mean by 'move her into a nice three bedroom bungalow'?
You seem to have not even a basic understanding of history. The crown estate properties belong to the crown. Not the government, not the taxpayer. They have been in the royal family's possessions since 1066 and therefore they have the most solid legal claim for their property of any property owners in the country.
You, the great opposer of the Israeali's who 'steal' Palestinian homes by buying them off them would actually support the theft by force, of the entire Royal Family's wealth and property. You would like our government to carry out a flagrant violation of international law to suit your bigoted and prejudicial ideals?
Surely not....
My argument is a simple one, if the royal family wants to exist then it should do so in a private capacity. Let them keep their lands, but they should pay for the upkeep themselves or else allow tourist money to subsidise them, but otherwise I want them out of all state affairs. If they come upon hard times then let them sell their properties. It is absurd that these people are still able to exert such an influence in a so called advanced democratic society. They are a relic of an awful multi-century period of rule, and like I say, it is a great shame that they weren't booted much sooner.
It is prejudiced to defend a set family being given privilege over and above all other families on the back of a despotic centuries long period of rule. That to me is the serious crime.
So where do we relocate Parliament? Or does the government purchase Westminster and all the other buildings at the cost of billions?
Remind me how this saves money again?
Yawwwwwwwwwnnnnn
And I thought some of these other threads were boring. :rolleyes:
My main objection to the monarchy is along political grounds. On the whole I don't actually care about saving money. It costs money to reform the electoral system, but I still want it done. Parliament is a building where decisions are made concerning the people of Britain and it should therefore stay with the national interest. If the Queen has an issue with that then let her bring it up with her 'people'. Of course, we are discussing 'what if's as what I want is not part of any current mainstream agenda. A shame really because I think a lot of people can't be doing with the Royal family. I would imagine most people would rather be out of the country rather than have to endure another Royal wedding which the plebs are expected to lap up on a grand scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboOk so we abolish the monarchy but they keep all their property and land.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have a very firm understanding of history and of the evolution of the monarchy and it is primarily for those reasons that I want it out. Historically speaking it has been a crony system where the so called ruler would validate his claim to the throne through bizarre talk of divine rule. It was a corrupt system whereby the elite kept a grip on power through connections and influence which was largely at the expense of the vast majority of the population. Nobody can afford to become sentimental about what a Royal family has meant historically speaking. It is an evil and unfair system which is on a par with the regimes of Kim Jong Il and Gadaffi. Anyone who stood in their way was wiped out without a due nod to democratic processes. It is a great shame that Britain never swept them out once and for all when we had the chance. Just because the Queen isn't butchering people today does not mean that I have to respect what the Royal family is. I despise it both in terms of history and I despise it in terms of what it has come to represent today. A monarchy is firmly against all democratic principles and there is no way to escape that. Would it be okay if Gaddafi were to say 'Okay, we shall no longer kill any of you, but we should keep our estates and in name still be head of state. Have your democracy, but let me keep this title. Please!". No, people would laugh and say "but you are a tyrant who commited terrible acts". We seem to sweep that under the floor with the royal family. Anyone who appreciates history knows that the Royal family has commited great crimes against the British people, and that alone without the arguments about democracy should be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboIt's not money arbitrarily handed over! She receives an annual income in exchange for the crown estate being managed by the government with the profits going to the treasury. WE benefit as much as the Royal Family does.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesShe is a benefits scrounger because the government arbitrarily hands over money to her and her family. Those are benefits. You say she works for it, but any person on benefits would likely be willing to dress up and shake hands for the same extraordinary benefits too. Heck, she doesn't even cook her own meals. It's a cushty kind of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboHow is she a benefits scrounger? First off, she works for her money. Secondly she has worked 20 years longer than ordinary people have to, and is still serving this country past her 85th year.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesA leader of a country should really be representing the people that voted for him. The Royal family is irrelevant in that regard. If the Queen was really about representing the people then she should have spoken up for the majority who were against the war in Iraq. Likewise, she should have spoken up against the poll tax and all sorts of other attacks against her so called people, but she doesn't. She stands either mute or uttering inane pleasantries. That is because she is one of the elite and likes her position as chief benefits scrounger of the UK. It's all well and good saying that she is one of us, but that is blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboGreat so when our prime minister is visiting with foreign diginitaries, or maybe the victims of a terrorist attack, where hundrede have been killed in a response to a government military policy in the middle east who is he representing first and foremost? The country? The people of Britain? The Government? The Conservative Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Our current Head of State is politically neutral and is not making policy. This is a wonderful thing. She doesn't represent the government, or the Tories, or an unpopular set of policies or austerity cuts. Rather she represents us, the people of Britain. There is such a great value to that that only a fool would want to lose it.
Whilst our political leaders may be hated by half the country, and blamed for much of what happens in it, the Royal Family represent us. When the queen visits her subjects she does so on behalf of us, not Labour, not the Lib Dems, not the Tories, or the judicial system.
There is strength and comfort in having a thousand years old institution to provide stability and an enduring presence in our nation. The royal family was invaluable during the war, and historically have been in times of great crisis, when the people need a focal point. You seriously underestimate the asset we have in them.
She and her lot are relics of a bygone and more inbred period in our history and I would like to see them consigned to history. People pay quite happily to see Buckingham palace for the structure that it is. Move the Queen into a 3 bedroom bungalow and the country would be a better place. Only then can she truly say that she is one of us.
Thirdly she MAKES us money. When you are talking about how much the Royal Family cost us what you really mean is how much of the profits we get from having them are we having to share with them.
The crown estate pays more to the taxpayer each year than the queen receives from them, so annually we owe her AND she works on our behalf.
How can you not understand this? She is the best value for money employee in the whole of Britain! Who else would rent out over £6.6 billion pounds of worth of property and then give all the profits to the taxpayer?
As I say, stick her in a 3 bedroom bungalow and give her a government pension to live on. Treat her like everyone else gets treated. Otherwise, let them stand alone and recieve absolutely no state support.
And what do you mean by 'move her into a nice three bedroom bungalow'?
You seem to have not even a basic understanding of history. The crown estate properties belong to the crown. Not the government, not the taxpayer. They have been in the royal family's possessions since 1066 and therefore they have the most solid legal claim for their property of any property owners in the country.
You, the great opposer of the Israeali's who 'steal' Palestinian homes by buying them off them would actually support the theft by force, of the entire Royal Family's wealth and property. You would like our government to carry out a flagrant violation of international law to suit your bigoted and prejudicial ideals?
Surely not....
My argument is a simple one, if the royal family wants to exist then it should do so in a private capacity. Let them keep their lands, but they should pay for the upkeep themselves or else allow tourist money to subsidise them, but otherwise I want them out of all state affairs. If they come upon hard times then let them sell their properties. It is absurd that these people are still able to exert such an influence in a so called advanced democratic society. They are a relic of an awful multi-century period of rule, and like I say, it is a great shame that they weren't booted much sooner.
It is prejudiced to defend a set family being given privilege over and above all other families on the back of a despotic centuries long period of rule. That to me is the serious crime.
So where do we relocate Parliament? Or does the government purchase Westminster and all the other buildings at the cost of billions?
Remind me how this saves money again?
It's time for a serious revolt against this accumulated wealth and influence based upon nothing more than being bred into the correct gene pool. It is something that I can only even be opposed to.
Yeah, this one has been hashed out already really. It's going nowhere new, just me and Bilbo treading old ground with ideas we have already gone through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
What ever floats your boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYeah, this one has been hashed out already really. It's going nowhere new, just me and Bilbo treading old ground with ideas we have already gone through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Well, you could post something interesting of your own. I do not have a monopoly on all the great thread ideas. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by GhostWhat ever floats your boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYeah, this one has been hashed out already really. It's going nowhere new, just me and Bilbo treading old ground with ideas we have already gone through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Are you lot going to watch the wedding? We all have the day off.
Am I bollocks! I'm going to kick in my TV if BBC world gives live coverage to that junk! :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Master