comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
You can't bemoan the reasoning to not get rid of something that's turning a profit unless you're willing to provide solid reasoning for the opposite.
BerbaKing11, it comes across like you don't care whether it's a good thing for the country or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he doesn’t have sound reasoning behind his opinion. He’s just suffered from decades of media-bashing to make his mind up for him. Yet we’re brain-dead apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can tell there's not much of a worthwhile discussion to be had when he ignores most of Bales message and goes down a rabbit hole of something that ultimately doesn't matter (how they're portrayed in the media)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t ignored any of his message. And I’ve made one passing reference to the media, and given a concrete example - with a citation - of the way in which the Royal’s are an extension of rapacious power, and how that *never* gets reported. And yet, ironically, Sat Nav thinks my opposition to the Royals is because of a hostile media that I’ve fallen for (despite the media not being hostile to the Royals in any meaningful way, not reporting on the important example I cited).
So I went down no such rabbit hole. It’s amazing how much people can’t seem to read & understand stuff that isn’t very complicated to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well try to help me grasp this then oh enlightened one:
What harm does the monarchy cause us?
Citing a story about the monarchs and concluding that the press is completely pro-monarchy (which isn’t a surprise given that the majority of the country is) doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
How many articles have been in the press about how much they ‘cost’ the taxpayer? When in reality they bring in far more than they cost.
The Diana stories were hardly purely pro-monarchy
This current story is very divided with most siding with Harry & Meghan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally cited an example - one you’ve never heard of - of how the royal prerogative has helped maintain sheer misery upon Diego Garcia - a people forced to live & die in poverty having been kicked off their island by The UK in order to give it to the US as a military base (used in a way that of course causes even greater harm in the ME) and you’re asking how they cause harm? Why not check what I’d shared?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hadn’t heard of it, thank you for sharing. That was 50 years ago, was it not? You don’t think that morality has moved on since then?
As horrible as actions like that are, do you think that the monarchy are purely to blame for such actions? The government had no involvement? I haven’t read the book in question so I don’t know, I’m just asking.
Do you you think that actions like that 50 years ago outweigh all of the good and charity they have done globally before and after that time?
Do you think one example from 50 years ago is enough to have them consigned to the annals of history? And lose all their charitable work?
The point is that many arguments have been given to you about the values of tradition and history, about the financials that they bring in, about the charity they do and you ignore all of that and focus on one small thing (not that it was anything than awful) from 50 years ago to justify your opinion that the majority of this country is wrong in supporting having a monarchy.
That would be like getting rid of Cantona because he assaulted an away fan.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
But we created the roads blud*.
Holy crap MacBooks have predictive text, I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what's more surprising, predictive text on a MacBook or you calling someone 'Blud'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had a few. But yeah my phone is being fixed so I'm using a MacBook. Don't know why I bought it, the new M1 chip forced me, even though I don't use it.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
You can't bemoan the reasoning to not get rid of something that's turning a profit unless you're willing to provide solid reasoning for the opposite.
BerbaKing11, it comes across like you don't care whether it's a good thing for the country or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he doesn’t have sound reasoning behind his opinion. He’s just suffered from decades of media-bashing to make his mind up for him. Yet we’re brain-dead apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can tell there's not much of a worthwhile discussion to be had when he ignores most of Bales message and goes down a rabbit hole of something that ultimately doesn't matter (how they're portrayed in the media)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t ignored any of his message. And I’ve made one passing reference to the media, and given a concrete example - with a citation - of the way in which the Royal’s are an extension of rapacious power, and how that *never* gets reported. And yet, ironically, Sat Nav thinks my opposition to the Royals is because of a hostile media that I’ve fallen for (despite the media not being hostile to the Royals in any meaningful way, not reporting on the important example I cited).
So I went down no such rabbit hole. It’s amazing how much people can’t seem to read & understand stuff that isn’t very complicated to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looked to me like you picked the one bit of the message you could use to make your point and just ignored all the bits that went against the set idea you have in your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I used that part because it neatly segued into starting to answer his previous post about why/what my opposition to the RF was based on. As I said - would require some seriously long replies in the main, but I could at least offer one very serious example that virtually nobody knows about precisely because it *doesn’t get reported*. Remember that for context, on more than one occasion I’d been accused of opposing the Royals because of what the media say. So I was killing two birds with one stone. A) here’s an important reason (royal prerogative/Diego Garcia) & b) given it not reported at all, it can’t be because of the media.
Clear enough?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting case I didn't know about. Though I found an article on the BBC immediately upon Googling Royal Perogative Diego Garcia.
I'm not saying you should be all for the monarchy, clearly you've got your opinion on it and that's fair enough. And I wouldn't try to defend some of the individuals involved.
It doesn't mean the reasoning for keeping the institution is necessarily faulty, though. Any system of government will advantage some and disadvantage others. For me, at least, to justify getting rid of them you'd have to demonstrate that we'd be better off as a republic. Which I don't think you or anyone else can really. It comes down to personal politics.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 1 minute ago
No one has mentioned the main important role of the royal that keeps them relevant; to help prop up dictators around the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the 'royal' Meg wearing earrings gifted from the vile murderous Saudi prince
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite as impressive as giving the Saudi king a state visit.
When dictators are pictured with the queen, it gives them legitimacy from one of the west's famous institutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After he killed Khashoggi, your beloved Meg accepted his gift
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve no great affinity to Markle - I know very little about her not particularly care - but as I understand, those earrings were a gift to the Queen, who had lent them to Markle later on. It’s not remotely clear that Markle knew who they were from originally. So at best, we should be cautious about this line of attack on her, and equally, if we’re so appalled at the idea of accepting a gift from the Saudi’s, we should be demanding the resignation of much of our political class for vastly worse collusion with the Saudi’s, not to mention the amount of Saudi investment sloshing around the UK since the 1970’s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You understand wrong. They were not a gift to the queen. They were given to Meg 2 weeks after the murder
Can we get back to being racist and angry please?
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 8 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok and how much do they bring in again? Oh yeah hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is a simple diagram for you
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/Royal-tax-latest-news-crown-estate-news-royal-family-finances-2564559.jpg?r=tel:tel:1594563000027
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I or you owned a huge oil field (for instance) by birthright we could rake in billions. Take what we see fit then give some back to the peasants who've paid for all the oil in the first place...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They bring in hundreds of millions every year, every year. And cost us hundreds of millions less. Hence profits to the ‘peasants’ of hundreds of millions a year.
Jesus Christ.
What harm does having a monarchy in the 21st century cause us? Please tell me, anyone??
Honestly it just boils down to clichéd flawed opinions based on poor media consumption.
The Windsors as a family are a bunch of morons on the whole and the Queen does do a lot for charity but as individuals they don’t have much of my respect and I don’t laud them but having a monarchy which is steeped in centuries and centuries of history and tradition in this country and the pride & pleasure that it brings most people in this country and millions around the world is undeniable.
If Liverpool say replaced YWNWA with the latest One Direction song because tradition is just for the brain-dead; how would that go down? Not very well I’m sure.
Tradition means something, history means something. Be proud that we have history and traditions like most other fking countries. Cup of tea, queen of England, fish and chips, queuing et cetera. They’re all pretty meaningless things, they’re not life and death matters but bloody hell what harm do they cause? Stop being such miserable fk fcks and enjoy some history ffs.
ππππ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All those traditions are "foreign" πππ
Queens German, monarchies began in sumer or egypt, think the word is german in origin
Tea is chinese . Charles 2 tried to ban it. East india company bought it to these shores but it was an expensive drink
Fish and chips invented by a jewish immigrant
Queueing is a danish in origin and french by name
Therefore we need more foreigners
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha good lad
I didn’t say invented though π
You understand wrong. They were not a gift to the queen. They were given to Meg 2 weeks after the murder
___________________
Quick google suggests she never met him and they actually belong to the monarchy
Funny how there's a barrage of articles on it too just before the Oprah interview is gonna come out
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 8 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok and how much do they bring in again? Oh yeah hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is a simple diagram for you
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/Royal-tax-latest-news-crown-estate-news-royal-family-finances-2564559.jpg?r=tel:1594563000027
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I or you owned a huge oil field (for instance) by birthright we could rake in billions. Take what we see fit then give some back to the peasants who've paid for all the oil in the first place...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They bring in hundreds of millions every year, every year. And cost us hundreds of millions less. Hence profits to the ‘peasants’ of hundreds of millions a year.
Jesus Christ.
What harm does having a monarchy in the 21st century cause us? Please tell me, anyone??
Honestly it just boils down to clichéd flawed opinions based on poor media consumption.
The Windsors as a family are a bunch of morons on the whole and the Queen does do a lot for charity but as individuals they don’t have much of my respect and I don’t laud them but having a monarchy which is steeped in centuries and centuries of history and tradition in this country and the pride & pleasure that it brings most people in this country and millions around the world is undeniable.
If Liverpool say replaced YWNWA with the latest One Direction song because tradition is just for the brain-dead; how would that go down? Not very well I’m sure.
Tradition means something, history means something. Be proud that we have history and traditions like most other fking countries. Cup of tea, queen of England, fish and chips, queuing et cetera. They’re all pretty meaningless things, they’re not life and death matters but bloody hell what harm do they cause? Stop being such miserable fk fcks and enjoy some history ffs.
ππππ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess traditionally you could behead them and take over, not a bad shout
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just googled it and it says £1.24 per head per year. Not expensive if correct. What thinks you Scruttock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about their income from the royal estates, including vast swathes of London's most expensive property?
Nationalise that, give the proceeds to the NHS. You can still fund the puppets for a bit of hand waving out of what's left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was about to write exactly this. And again I wouldn't mind funding their UBI claim if they qualified for it, in fact I'd argue people in that situation need far more help
Nationalise that, give the proceeds to the NHS. You can still fund the puppets for a bit of hand waving out of what's left.
----
That's entirely realistic. Of course that's what would happen if we dissolved the monarchy. What with the money from Brexit the NHS won't know what to do. £10 pay rises for everyone.
Ultimately criticism is one thing, but how this discussion started was hyperbolic nonsense. They don’t really have any power that they use, they don’t cost us any money, they’re part of our history & tradition and they do a fk load in charity across the world and have done for decades.
I appreciate Berba’s link to that story from the 60s/70s but as was posted previously I don’t see how that alone is justification for getting rid of them and replacing them with a boring Republic.
They’re a far greater good for this country and the world than they are bad. It’s as simple as that really.
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
Who would you rather pump, the queen or Meghan Markel as her waters are within hours of breaking and it's like super risky? Applies to both sides, racists and snowflakes.
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Who would you rather pump, the queen or Meghan Markel as her waters are within hours of breaking and it's like super risky? Applies to both sides, racists and snowflakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate that’s filth
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 48 seconds ago
Who would you rather pump, the queen or Meghan Markel as her waters are within hours of breaking and it's like super risky? Applies to both sides, racists and snowflakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously you pump where there's water.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate stop peddling lies. The buses clearly said £350m not £360m
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 49 seconds ago
Nationalise that, give the proceeds to the NHS. You can still fund the puppets for a bit of hand waving out of what's left.
----
That's entirely realistic. Of course that's what would happen if we dissolved the monarchy. What with the money from Brexit the NHS won't know what to do. £10 pay rises for everyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the NHS is awash with money. The bus promised they'd get the full value of the EU payment.
They weren't lying, we're they?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate stop peddling lies. The buses clearly said £350m not £360m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure what's an extra £10m between friends?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
You can't bemoan the reasoning to not get rid of something that's turning a profit unless you're willing to provide solid reasoning for the opposite.
BerbaKing11, it comes across like you don't care whether it's a good thing for the country or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he doesn’t have sound reasoning behind his opinion. He’s just suffered from decades of media-bashing to make his mind up for him. Yet we’re brain-dead apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can tell there's not much of a worthwhile discussion to be had when he ignores most of Bales message and goes down a rabbit hole of something that ultimately doesn't matter (how they're portrayed in the media)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t ignored any of his message. And I’ve made one passing reference to the media, and given a concrete example - with a citation - of the way in which the Royal’s are an extension of rapacious power, and how that *never* gets reported. And yet, ironically, Sat Nav thinks my opposition to the Royals is because of a hostile media that I’ve fallen for (despite the media not being hostile to the Royals in any meaningful way, not reporting on the important example I cited).
So I went down no such rabbit hole. It’s amazing how much people can’t seem to read & understand stuff that isn’t very complicated to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well try to help me grasp this then oh enlightened one:
What harm does the monarchy cause us?
Citing a story about the monarchs and concluding that the press is completely pro-monarchy (which isn’t a surprise given that the majority of the country is) doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
How many articles have been in the press about how much they ‘cost’ the taxpayer? When in reality they bring in far more than they cost.
The Diana stories were hardly purely pro-monarchy
This current story is very divided with most siding with Harry & Meghan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally cited an example - one you’ve never heard of - of how the royal prerogative has helped maintain sheer misery upon Diego Garcia - a people forced to live & die in poverty having been kicked off their island by The UK in order to give it to the US as a military base (used in a way that of course causes even greater harm in the ME) and you’re asking how they cause harm? Why not check what I’d shared?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hadn’t heard of it, thank you for sharing. That was 50 years ago, was it not? You don’t think that morality has moved on since then?
As horrible as actions like that are, do you think that the monarchy are purely to blame for such actions? The government had no involvement? I haven’t read the book in question so I don’t know, I’m just asking.
Do you you think that actions like that 50 years ago outweigh all of the good and charity they have done globally before and after that time?
Do you think one example from 50 years ago is enough to have them consigned to the annals of history? And lose all their charitable work?
The point is that many arguments have been given to you about the values of tradition and history, about the financials that they bring in, about the charity they do and you ignore all of that and focus on one small thing (not that it was anything than awful) from 50 years ago to justify your opinion that the majority of this country is wrong in supporting having a monarchy.
That would be like getting rid of Cantona because he assaulted an away fan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the original crime was 50 years ago, however, the people of Diego Garcia have been fighting the UK through the courts *ever since*. In 2000, they won a High Court case against the government. Blair went to the Queen to ask her to essentially overrule the verdict - a power she basically has via the privy council. This is the kind of unaccountable & largely unknown power the Monarchy actually has. That they can overrule a high court judgment in a major human rights case in virtual secrecy is a sham. This has continued on since then, also.
I’m not opposed in theory to a fluffy & toothless celebrity Monarchy that people fly union jacks to as they cruise past in jewels on carriages. The ceremony strikes me as particularly embarrassing and wouldn’t look out of place in North Korea, but if it’s harmless it’s harmless. But it isn’t harmless. The Royals also participate in trade - officially its kind of for show - but in reality it isn’t at all. To hint at an example, consider that Prince Andrew - yes him again! - was involved in trade/oil with Azerbaijan. He’s not mentioned in this article, but in light of what we now know about him... https://cryptome.org/bp-mi6.htm But that would be to get into the dark & pretty secretive realities of ‘trade’ (oil, arms & that murky world).
Ps, that article appeared in the Daily Mail - of all places - and was immediately taken down. It has all but been scrubbed from the internet since, for quite obvious reasons; it reveals the nature of power & what it gets up to, and we know plenty about the blurred lines between this sort of thing & the role that the monarchy plays within this system.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate stop peddling lies. The buses clearly said £350m not £360m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure what's an extra £10m between friends?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it might help your defence out a bit
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack is sovereignty?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ultimately criticism is one thing, but how this discussion started was hyperbolic nonsense. They don’t really have any power that they use, they don’t cost us any money, they’re part of our history & tradition and they do a fk load in charity across the world and have done for decades.
I appreciate Berba’s link to that story from the 60s/70s but as was posted previously I don’t see how that alone is justification for getting rid of them and replacing them with a boring Republic.
They’re a far greater good for this country and the world than they are bad. It’s as simple as that really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t from the 60’s/70’s. The original crime perpetrated by the British state was. The Queen’s intervention was in 2000.
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack is sovereignty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Used to be able to get packs of 10 in Londis.
Fackin Brussels ruining everything
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack is sovereignty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what we got back. You know, sovereignty, yay.
Sign in if you want to comment
Meghan Markle and Royal Family
Page 12 of 82
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
posted on 5/3/21
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
You can't bemoan the reasoning to not get rid of something that's turning a profit unless you're willing to provide solid reasoning for the opposite.
BerbaKing11, it comes across like you don't care whether it's a good thing for the country or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he doesn’t have sound reasoning behind his opinion. He’s just suffered from decades of media-bashing to make his mind up for him. Yet we’re brain-dead apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can tell there's not much of a worthwhile discussion to be had when he ignores most of Bales message and goes down a rabbit hole of something that ultimately doesn't matter (how they're portrayed in the media)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t ignored any of his message. And I’ve made one passing reference to the media, and given a concrete example - with a citation - of the way in which the Royal’s are an extension of rapacious power, and how that *never* gets reported. And yet, ironically, Sat Nav thinks my opposition to the Royals is because of a hostile media that I’ve fallen for (despite the media not being hostile to the Royals in any meaningful way, not reporting on the important example I cited).
So I went down no such rabbit hole. It’s amazing how much people can’t seem to read & understand stuff that isn’t very complicated to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well try to help me grasp this then oh enlightened one:
What harm does the monarchy cause us?
Citing a story about the monarchs and concluding that the press is completely pro-monarchy (which isn’t a surprise given that the majority of the country is) doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
How many articles have been in the press about how much they ‘cost’ the taxpayer? When in reality they bring in far more than they cost.
The Diana stories were hardly purely pro-monarchy
This current story is very divided with most siding with Harry & Meghan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally cited an example - one you’ve never heard of - of how the royal prerogative has helped maintain sheer misery upon Diego Garcia - a people forced to live & die in poverty having been kicked off their island by The UK in order to give it to the US as a military base (used in a way that of course causes even greater harm in the ME) and you’re asking how they cause harm? Why not check what I’d shared?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hadn’t heard of it, thank you for sharing. That was 50 years ago, was it not? You don’t think that morality has moved on since then?
As horrible as actions like that are, do you think that the monarchy are purely to blame for such actions? The government had no involvement? I haven’t read the book in question so I don’t know, I’m just asking.
Do you you think that actions like that 50 years ago outweigh all of the good and charity they have done globally before and after that time?
Do you think one example from 50 years ago is enough to have them consigned to the annals of history? And lose all their charitable work?
The point is that many arguments have been given to you about the values of tradition and history, about the financials that they bring in, about the charity they do and you ignore all of that and focus on one small thing (not that it was anything than awful) from 50 years ago to justify your opinion that the majority of this country is wrong in supporting having a monarchy.
That would be like getting rid of Cantona because he assaulted an away fan.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
But we created the roads blud*.
Holy crap MacBooks have predictive text, I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what's more surprising, predictive text on a MacBook or you calling someone 'Blud'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had a few. But yeah my phone is being fixed so I'm using a MacBook. Don't know why I bought it, the new M1 chip forced me, even though I don't use it.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
You can't bemoan the reasoning to not get rid of something that's turning a profit unless you're willing to provide solid reasoning for the opposite.
BerbaKing11, it comes across like you don't care whether it's a good thing for the country or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he doesn’t have sound reasoning behind his opinion. He’s just suffered from decades of media-bashing to make his mind up for him. Yet we’re brain-dead apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can tell there's not much of a worthwhile discussion to be had when he ignores most of Bales message and goes down a rabbit hole of something that ultimately doesn't matter (how they're portrayed in the media)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t ignored any of his message. And I’ve made one passing reference to the media, and given a concrete example - with a citation - of the way in which the Royal’s are an extension of rapacious power, and how that *never* gets reported. And yet, ironically, Sat Nav thinks my opposition to the Royals is because of a hostile media that I’ve fallen for (despite the media not being hostile to the Royals in any meaningful way, not reporting on the important example I cited).
So I went down no such rabbit hole. It’s amazing how much people can’t seem to read & understand stuff that isn’t very complicated to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looked to me like you picked the one bit of the message you could use to make your point and just ignored all the bits that went against the set idea you have in your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I used that part because it neatly segued into starting to answer his previous post about why/what my opposition to the RF was based on. As I said - would require some seriously long replies in the main, but I could at least offer one very serious example that virtually nobody knows about precisely because it *doesn’t get reported*. Remember that for context, on more than one occasion I’d been accused of opposing the Royals because of what the media say. So I was killing two birds with one stone. A) here’s an important reason (royal prerogative/Diego Garcia) & b) given it not reported at all, it can’t be because of the media.
Clear enough?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting case I didn't know about. Though I found an article on the BBC immediately upon Googling Royal Perogative Diego Garcia.
I'm not saying you should be all for the monarchy, clearly you've got your opinion on it and that's fair enough. And I wouldn't try to defend some of the individuals involved.
It doesn't mean the reasoning for keeping the institution is necessarily faulty, though. Any system of government will advantage some and disadvantage others. For me, at least, to justify getting rid of them you'd have to demonstrate that we'd be better off as a republic. Which I don't think you or anyone else can really. It comes down to personal politics.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 1 minute ago
No one has mentioned the main important role of the royal that keeps them relevant; to help prop up dictators around the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the 'royal' Meg wearing earrings gifted from the vile murderous Saudi prince
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite as impressive as giving the Saudi king a state visit.
When dictators are pictured with the queen, it gives them legitimacy from one of the west's famous institutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After he killed Khashoggi, your beloved Meg accepted his gift
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve no great affinity to Markle - I know very little about her not particularly care - but as I understand, those earrings were a gift to the Queen, who had lent them to Markle later on. It’s not remotely clear that Markle knew who they were from originally. So at best, we should be cautious about this line of attack on her, and equally, if we’re so appalled at the idea of accepting a gift from the Saudi’s, we should be demanding the resignation of much of our political class for vastly worse collusion with the Saudi’s, not to mention the amount of Saudi investment sloshing around the UK since the 1970’s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You understand wrong. They were not a gift to the queen. They were given to Meg 2 weeks after the murder
posted on 5/3/21
Can we get back to being racist and angry please?
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 8 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok and how much do they bring in again? Oh yeah hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is a simple diagram for you
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/Royal-tax-latest-news-crown-estate-news-royal-family-finances-2564559.jpg?r=tel:tel:1594563000027
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I or you owned a huge oil field (for instance) by birthright we could rake in billions. Take what we see fit then give some back to the peasants who've paid for all the oil in the first place...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They bring in hundreds of millions every year, every year. And cost us hundreds of millions less. Hence profits to the ‘peasants’ of hundreds of millions a year.
Jesus Christ.
What harm does having a monarchy in the 21st century cause us? Please tell me, anyone??
Honestly it just boils down to clichéd flawed opinions based on poor media consumption.
The Windsors as a family are a bunch of morons on the whole and the Queen does do a lot for charity but as individuals they don’t have much of my respect and I don’t laud them but having a monarchy which is steeped in centuries and centuries of history and tradition in this country and the pride & pleasure that it brings most people in this country and millions around the world is undeniable.
If Liverpool say replaced YWNWA with the latest One Direction song because tradition is just for the brain-dead; how would that go down? Not very well I’m sure.
Tradition means something, history means something. Be proud that we have history and traditions like most other fking countries. Cup of tea, queen of England, fish and chips, queuing et cetera. They’re all pretty meaningless things, they’re not life and death matters but bloody hell what harm do they cause? Stop being such miserable fk fcks and enjoy some history ffs.
ππππ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All those traditions are "foreign" πππ
Queens German, monarchies began in sumer or egypt, think the word is german in origin
Tea is chinese . Charles 2 tried to ban it. East india company bought it to these shores but it was an expensive drink
Fish and chips invented by a jewish immigrant
Queueing is a danish in origin and french by name
Therefore we need more foreigners
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha good lad
I didn’t say invented though π
posted on 5/3/21
You understand wrong. They were not a gift to the queen. They were given to Meg 2 weeks after the murder
___________________
Quick google suggests she never met him and they actually belong to the monarchy
Funny how there's a barrage of articles on it too just before the Oprah interview is gonna come out
posted on 5/3/21
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 8 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok and how much do they bring in again? Oh yeah hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is a simple diagram for you
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/Royal-tax-latest-news-crown-estate-news-royal-family-finances-2564559.jpg?r=tel:1594563000027
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I or you owned a huge oil field (for instance) by birthright we could rake in billions. Take what we see fit then give some back to the peasants who've paid for all the oil in the first place...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They bring in hundreds of millions every year, every year. And cost us hundreds of millions less. Hence profits to the ‘peasants’ of hundreds of millions a year.
Jesus Christ.
What harm does having a monarchy in the 21st century cause us? Please tell me, anyone??
Honestly it just boils down to clichéd flawed opinions based on poor media consumption.
The Windsors as a family are a bunch of morons on the whole and the Queen does do a lot for charity but as individuals they don’t have much of my respect and I don’t laud them but having a monarchy which is steeped in centuries and centuries of history and tradition in this country and the pride & pleasure that it brings most people in this country and millions around the world is undeniable.
If Liverpool say replaced YWNWA with the latest One Direction song because tradition is just for the brain-dead; how would that go down? Not very well I’m sure.
Tradition means something, history means something. Be proud that we have history and traditions like most other fking countries. Cup of tea, queen of England, fish and chips, queuing et cetera. They’re all pretty meaningless things, they’re not life and death matters but bloody hell what harm do they cause? Stop being such miserable fk fcks and enjoy some history ffs.
ππππ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess traditionally you could behead them and take over, not a bad shout
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just googled it and it says £1.24 per head per year. Not expensive if correct. What thinks you Scruttock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about their income from the royal estates, including vast swathes of London's most expensive property?
Nationalise that, give the proceeds to the NHS. You can still fund the puppets for a bit of hand waving out of what's left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was about to write exactly this. And again I wouldn't mind funding their UBI claim if they qualified for it, in fact I'd argue people in that situation need far more help
posted on 5/3/21
Nationalise that, give the proceeds to the NHS. You can still fund the puppets for a bit of hand waving out of what's left.
----
That's entirely realistic. Of course that's what would happen if we dissolved the monarchy. What with the money from Brexit the NHS won't know what to do. £10 pay rises for everyone.
posted on 5/3/21
Ultimately criticism is one thing, but how this discussion started was hyperbolic nonsense. They don’t really have any power that they use, they don’t cost us any money, they’re part of our history & tradition and they do a fk load in charity across the world and have done for decades.
I appreciate Berba’s link to that story from the 60s/70s but as was posted previously I don’t see how that alone is justification for getting rid of them and replacing them with a boring Republic.
They’re a far greater good for this country and the world than they are bad. It’s as simple as that really.
posted on 5/3/21
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
posted on 5/3/21
Who would you rather pump, the queen or Meghan Markel as her waters are within hours of breaking and it's like super risky? Applies to both sides, racists and snowflakes.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Who would you rather pump, the queen or Meghan Markel as her waters are within hours of breaking and it's like super risky? Applies to both sides, racists and snowflakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate that’s filth
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 48 seconds ago
Who would you rather pump, the queen or Meghan Markel as her waters are within hours of breaking and it's like super risky? Applies to both sides, racists and snowflakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously you pump where there's water.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate stop peddling lies. The buses clearly said £350m not £360m
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 49 seconds ago
Nationalise that, give the proceeds to the NHS. You can still fund the puppets for a bit of hand waving out of what's left.
----
That's entirely realistic. Of course that's what would happen if we dissolved the monarchy. What with the money from Brexit the NHS won't know what to do. £10 pay rises for everyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the NHS is awash with money. The bus promised they'd get the full value of the EU payment.
They weren't lying, we're they?
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate stop peddling lies. The buses clearly said £350m not £360m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure what's an extra £10m between friends?
posted on 5/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TBaggerin (U11806)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
You can't bemoan the reasoning to not get rid of something that's turning a profit unless you're willing to provide solid reasoning for the opposite.
BerbaKing11, it comes across like you don't care whether it's a good thing for the country or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he doesn’t have sound reasoning behind his opinion. He’s just suffered from decades of media-bashing to make his mind up for him. Yet we’re brain-dead apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can tell there's not much of a worthwhile discussion to be had when he ignores most of Bales message and goes down a rabbit hole of something that ultimately doesn't matter (how they're portrayed in the media)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t ignored any of his message. And I’ve made one passing reference to the media, and given a concrete example - with a citation - of the way in which the Royal’s are an extension of rapacious power, and how that *never* gets reported. And yet, ironically, Sat Nav thinks my opposition to the Royals is because of a hostile media that I’ve fallen for (despite the media not being hostile to the Royals in any meaningful way, not reporting on the important example I cited).
So I went down no such rabbit hole. It’s amazing how much people can’t seem to read & understand stuff that isn’t very complicated to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well try to help me grasp this then oh enlightened one:
What harm does the monarchy cause us?
Citing a story about the monarchs and concluding that the press is completely pro-monarchy (which isn’t a surprise given that the majority of the country is) doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
How many articles have been in the press about how much they ‘cost’ the taxpayer? When in reality they bring in far more than they cost.
The Diana stories were hardly purely pro-monarchy
This current story is very divided with most siding with Harry & Meghan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally cited an example - one you’ve never heard of - of how the royal prerogative has helped maintain sheer misery upon Diego Garcia - a people forced to live & die in poverty having been kicked off their island by The UK in order to give it to the US as a military base (used in a way that of course causes even greater harm in the ME) and you’re asking how they cause harm? Why not check what I’d shared?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hadn’t heard of it, thank you for sharing. That was 50 years ago, was it not? You don’t think that morality has moved on since then?
As horrible as actions like that are, do you think that the monarchy are purely to blame for such actions? The government had no involvement? I haven’t read the book in question so I don’t know, I’m just asking.
Do you you think that actions like that 50 years ago outweigh all of the good and charity they have done globally before and after that time?
Do you think one example from 50 years ago is enough to have them consigned to the annals of history? And lose all their charitable work?
The point is that many arguments have been given to you about the values of tradition and history, about the financials that they bring in, about the charity they do and you ignore all of that and focus on one small thing (not that it was anything than awful) from 50 years ago to justify your opinion that the majority of this country is wrong in supporting having a monarchy.
That would be like getting rid of Cantona because he assaulted an away fan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the original crime was 50 years ago, however, the people of Diego Garcia have been fighting the UK through the courts *ever since*. In 2000, they won a High Court case against the government. Blair went to the Queen to ask her to essentially overrule the verdict - a power she basically has via the privy council. This is the kind of unaccountable & largely unknown power the Monarchy actually has. That they can overrule a high court judgment in a major human rights case in virtual secrecy is a sham. This has continued on since then, also.
I’m not opposed in theory to a fluffy & toothless celebrity Monarchy that people fly union jacks to as they cruise past in jewels on carriages. The ceremony strikes me as particularly embarrassing and wouldn’t look out of place in North Korea, but if it’s harmless it’s harmless. But it isn’t harmless. The Royals also participate in trade - officially its kind of for show - but in reality it isn’t at all. To hint at an example, consider that Prince Andrew - yes him again! - was involved in trade/oil with Azerbaijan. He’s not mentioned in this article, but in light of what we now know about him... https://cryptome.org/bp-mi6.htm But that would be to get into the dark & pretty secretive realities of ‘trade’ (oil, arms & that murky world).
Ps, that article appeared in the Daily Mail - of all places - and was immediately taken down. It has all but been scrubbed from the internet since, for quite obvious reasons; it reveals the nature of power & what it gets up to, and we know plenty about the blurred lines between this sort of thing & the role that the monarchy plays within this system.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate stop peddling lies. The buses clearly said £350m not £360m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure what's an extra £10m between friends?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it might help your defence out a bit
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack is sovereignty?
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ultimately criticism is one thing, but how this discussion started was hyperbolic nonsense. They don’t really have any power that they use, they don’t cost us any money, they’re part of our history & tradition and they do a fk load in charity across the world and have done for decades.
I appreciate Berba’s link to that story from the 60s/70s but as was posted previously I don’t see how that alone is justification for getting rid of them and replacing them with a boring Republic.
They’re a far greater good for this country and the world than they are bad. It’s as simple as that really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t from the 60’s/70’s. The original crime perpetrated by the British state was. The Queen’s intervention was in 2000.
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack is sovereignty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Used to be able to get packs of 10 in Londis.
Fackin Brussels ruining everything
posted on 5/3/21
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Ace (U22467)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Look, keep the monarchy, give £360m per week to the NHS, foreigns out, job done. This is what we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That, and our sovereignty back. Don’t forget about the sovereignty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having my sovereignty back is the must important thing. I don't know how I managed without it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack is sovereignty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what we got back. You know, sovereignty, yay.
Page 12 of 82
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17