Robb, you're saying that as if they're actively involved in policy making in the main? Honestly, deep down, most politicians probably believe the same thing...
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 26 minutes ago
Frankly I like balance between elected and unelected officials. With elected officials they spend most of their time trying to win elections, not run the country properly.
See the current Tory leadership contest as an example in a tax cutting race to the bottom.
Is that what's best for the country, or just what is getting them into power?
To quote Kent Brockman, "I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS Luke, you called Trudeau Hitler.
Isn’t their contribution based on arms anyway? Paid diplomats wouldn’t cost as much.
This is turning into what I hoped Ronaldo v Religion was going to be...
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/446509
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
Imagine with all the leaps forward humanity has taken forward over the centuries that some people would still want to be ruled by a family that is considered to be superior by birth and bloodline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not ruled by the Royal Family. They are a figurehead. Nothing more.
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 seconds ago
Considering how utterly facking shiiiite the elected officials in this country are, I'd rather we kept a monarchy than installed a psuedo-popularity contest that would be a presidency and completely rewrite the political and traditional framework of this country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from being above the law (a positive for them). What positive effects do the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's have on the politics/laws of the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stability, decorum and a huge intangible amount of respect that no elected politician can match on the global stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonce enabling is now respectful
As for the rest, the UK is fast becoming a laughing stock on the international stage due to the Tories as well as crumbling in terms of infrastructure and quality of life for many of its citizens. The royal family haven't done anything to combat the Tories many feck ups, mountains of corruption and actual criminal acts have they.
Again what positive do they provide?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're saying the royal family should step in and influence the elected officials?
It's pretty well known than the royal family is an incredibly well respected institution on the global geo-political stage and helps us maintain consistent relationships with nations world over, which having an ever flip flopping president wouldn't allow us to maintain.
And that's why stability is so important.
What negative do they provide to this nation as an institution? I'm not going to sit here and defend Andrew, the guy is a khunt of the highest order and should have been punished if found guilty, but I don't believe he is representative of the institution of the royal family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first comment intimated they were worth keeping because the UK would be such a political mess without them. I was countering your point which imo you've failed to back up.
*Among other major problems the country is currently a political mess and we have a monarchy. Reminds me of Sunak vs Truss ripping the feck out of the job their own party has done for the last 12 years!
Negatives:
Above the law
Unelected
Hord land
Hord resources
Live the most extreme life of luxury at the expense of working people
Positives:
Makes cuckolds moist
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering you can't even spell hoard I find it difficult to take what you write seriously.
I'm not saying things aren't a political mess here, they are a facking shambles. But despite being a facking shambles on the domestic front, because we don't have Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Jeremy Corbyn etc as head of state we are continually respected on a global stage.
My point is in reference to how we are perceived as a nation globally, they rightly have little influence on what's causing the unrest domestically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. That was well documented when Bill and Kate toured the Caribbean recently. Boo
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 seconds ago
Considering how utterly facking shiiiite the elected officials in this country are, I'd rather we kept a monarchy than installed a psuedo-popularity contest that would be a presidency and completely rewrite the political and traditional framework of this country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from being above the law (a positive for them). What positive effects do the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's have on the politics/laws of the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stability, decorum and a huge intangible amount of respect that no elected politician can match on the global stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonce enabling is now respectful
As for the rest, the UK is fast becoming a laughing stock on the international stage due to the Tories as well as crumbling in terms of infrastructure and quality of life for many of its citizens. The royal family haven't done anything to combat the Tories many feck ups, mountains of corruption and actual criminal acts have they.
Again what positive do they provide?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're saying the royal family should step in and influence the elected officials?
It's pretty well known than the royal family is an incredibly well respected institution on the global geo-political stage and helps us maintain consistent relationships with nations world over, which having an ever flip flopping president wouldn't allow us to maintain.
And that's why stability is so important.
What negative do they provide to this nation as an institution? I'm not going to sit here and defend Andrew, the guy is a khunt of the highest order and should have been punished if found guilty, but I don't believe he is representative of the institution of the royal family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first comment intimated they were worth keeping because the UK would be such a political mess without them. I was countering your point which imo you've failed to back up.
*Among other major problems the country is currently a political mess and we have a monarchy. Reminds me of Sunak vs Truss ripping the feck out of the job their own party has done for the last 12 years!
Negatives:
Above the law
Unelected
Hord land
Hord resources
Live the most extreme life of luxury at the expense of working people
Positives:
Makes cuckolds moist
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering you can't even spell hoard I find it difficult to take what you write seriously.
I'm not saying things aren't a political mess here, they are a facking shambles. But despite being a facking shambles on the domestic front, because we don't have Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Jeremy Corbyn etc as head of state we are continually respected on a global stage.
My point is in reference to how we are perceived as a nation globally, they rightly have little influence on what's causing the unrest domestically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no a misspelling, yep invalidates everything I've said obviously.
Ffs
On the one hand the Queen can put on a nice party (well her staff can) to help butter up officials of other nations on the other bails out nonces. Great.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a five letter word. Any individual with a modicum of intelligence should be able to spell it.
Let me ask you this then, most people are pro republic because they seem to assume they'd have an elected official that holds their opinions.
How would you feel if that elected official was Nigel Farage / Boris Johnson etc? Giving us a Tory / right wing government and Tory president?
Because let's be honest, that's the most likely outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read through the comments and explain in what way the queen currently has any positive influence bar some perceived dignity. The country is still being fecked over by terrible politicians.
No I'm not saying a monarchy should interfere btw. You were the one who thinks it would be worse without them (which sounds like you believe they already do interfere politically)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've explained my particular point, I don't believe they do have a huge influence on how we live in the UK, I do not believe they have an influence (nor should should they) but they are a benefit to our position in the world globally as a nation.
Now I've answered your question, how about answering mine rather than completely ignore it?
Also that was a terribly worded point, my coffee finished brewing mid way through
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, she is Head or Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, she is Head or Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But has no control over them. None what so ever.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, she is Head or Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But has no control over them. None what so ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No that's not strictly true. She has ultimate control of the armed forces by "by advice of the cabinet".
I believe it's also the monarch that would declare war on a country, again "by advice of the cabinet".
So whilst she doesn't make active decisions and is guided by elected officials (for better or worse) saying she's no control over the armed forces isn't strictly correct.
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 55 seconds ago
haha idiot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be you.
she can get the canadians to come wedgie vidic aswell
No that's not strictly true
…
It actually is. The Secretary of State for Defence has control of the UK Armed Forces.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 6 seconds ago
No that's not strictly true
…
It actually is. The Secretary of State for Defence has control of the UK Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Via the Queen who is commander-in-chief. In practical terms, you're arguably right, but to say she has "no control" is wrong.
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she can get the canadians to come wedgie vidic aswell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she can not.
carry on and youll get a swirly aswell.
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 8 minutes ago
carry on and youll get a swirly aswell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you on about you burbling fool.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 8 minutes ago
carry on and youll get a swirly aswell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you on about you burbling fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's trying to provoke the exact reaction you're giving him, stop replying
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 6 seconds ago
No that's not strictly true
…
It actually is. The Secretary of State for Defence has control of the UK Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Via the Queen who is commander-in-chief. In practical terms, you're arguably right, but to say she has "no control" is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She can declare war
Sign in if you want to comment
Operation London Bridge
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 28/7/22
Robb, you're saying that as if they're actively involved in policy making in the main? Honestly, deep down, most politicians probably believe the same thing...
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 26 minutes ago
Frankly I like balance between elected and unelected officials. With elected officials they spend most of their time trying to win elections, not run the country properly.
See the current Tory leadership contest as an example in a tax cutting race to the bottom.
Is that what's best for the country, or just what is getting them into power?
To quote Kent Brockman, "I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS Luke, you called Trudeau Hitler.
posted on 28/7/22
Isn’t their contribution based on arms anyway? Paid diplomats wouldn’t cost as much.
posted on 28/7/22
This is turning into what I hoped Ronaldo v Religion was going to be...
posted on 28/7/22
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/446509
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
Imagine with all the leaps forward humanity has taken forward over the centuries that some people would still want to be ruled by a family that is considered to be superior by birth and bloodline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not ruled by the Royal Family. They are a figurehead. Nothing more.
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 seconds ago
Considering how utterly facking shiiiite the elected officials in this country are, I'd rather we kept a monarchy than installed a psuedo-popularity contest that would be a presidency and completely rewrite the political and traditional framework of this country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from being above the law (a positive for them). What positive effects do the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's have on the politics/laws of the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stability, decorum and a huge intangible amount of respect that no elected politician can match on the global stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonce enabling is now respectful
As for the rest, the UK is fast becoming a laughing stock on the international stage due to the Tories as well as crumbling in terms of infrastructure and quality of life for many of its citizens. The royal family haven't done anything to combat the Tories many feck ups, mountains of corruption and actual criminal acts have they.
Again what positive do they provide?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're saying the royal family should step in and influence the elected officials?
It's pretty well known than the royal family is an incredibly well respected institution on the global geo-political stage and helps us maintain consistent relationships with nations world over, which having an ever flip flopping president wouldn't allow us to maintain.
And that's why stability is so important.
What negative do they provide to this nation as an institution? I'm not going to sit here and defend Andrew, the guy is a khunt of the highest order and should have been punished if found guilty, but I don't believe he is representative of the institution of the royal family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first comment intimated they were worth keeping because the UK would be such a political mess without them. I was countering your point which imo you've failed to back up.
*Among other major problems the country is currently a political mess and we have a monarchy. Reminds me of Sunak vs Truss ripping the feck out of the job their own party has done for the last 12 years!
Negatives:
Above the law
Unelected
Hord land
Hord resources
Live the most extreme life of luxury at the expense of working people
Positives:
Makes cuckolds moist
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering you can't even spell hoard I find it difficult to take what you write seriously.
I'm not saying things aren't a political mess here, they are a facking shambles. But despite being a facking shambles on the domestic front, because we don't have Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Jeremy Corbyn etc as head of state we are continually respected on a global stage.
My point is in reference to how we are perceived as a nation globally, they rightly have little influence on what's causing the unrest domestically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. That was well documented when Bill and Kate toured the Caribbean recently. Boo
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 seconds ago
Considering how utterly facking shiiiite the elected officials in this country are, I'd rather we kept a monarchy than installed a psuedo-popularity contest that would be a presidency and completely rewrite the political and traditional framework of this country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from being above the law (a positive for them). What positive effects do the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's have on the politics/laws of the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stability, decorum and a huge intangible amount of respect that no elected politician can match on the global stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonce enabling is now respectful
As for the rest, the UK is fast becoming a laughing stock on the international stage due to the Tories as well as crumbling in terms of infrastructure and quality of life for many of its citizens. The royal family haven't done anything to combat the Tories many feck ups, mountains of corruption and actual criminal acts have they.
Again what positive do they provide?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're saying the royal family should step in and influence the elected officials?
It's pretty well known than the royal family is an incredibly well respected institution on the global geo-political stage and helps us maintain consistent relationships with nations world over, which having an ever flip flopping president wouldn't allow us to maintain.
And that's why stability is so important.
What negative do they provide to this nation as an institution? I'm not going to sit here and defend Andrew, the guy is a khunt of the highest order and should have been punished if found guilty, but I don't believe he is representative of the institution of the royal family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first comment intimated they were worth keeping because the UK would be such a political mess without them. I was countering your point which imo you've failed to back up.
*Among other major problems the country is currently a political mess and we have a monarchy. Reminds me of Sunak vs Truss ripping the feck out of the job their own party has done for the last 12 years!
Negatives:
Above the law
Unelected
Hord land
Hord resources
Live the most extreme life of luxury at the expense of working people
Positives:
Makes cuckolds moist
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering you can't even spell hoard I find it difficult to take what you write seriously.
I'm not saying things aren't a political mess here, they are a facking shambles. But despite being a facking shambles on the domestic front, because we don't have Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Jeremy Corbyn etc as head of state we are continually respected on a global stage.
My point is in reference to how we are perceived as a nation globally, they rightly have little influence on what's causing the unrest domestically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no a misspelling, yep invalidates everything I've said obviously.
Ffs
On the one hand the Queen can put on a nice party (well her staff can) to help butter up officials of other nations on the other bails out nonces. Great.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a five letter word. Any individual with a modicum of intelligence should be able to spell it.
Let me ask you this then, most people are pro republic because they seem to assume they'd have an elected official that holds their opinions.
How would you feel if that elected official was Nigel Farage / Boris Johnson etc? Giving us a Tory / right wing government and Tory president?
Because let's be honest, that's the most likely outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read through the comments and explain in what way the queen currently has any positive influence bar some perceived dignity. The country is still being fecked over by terrible politicians.
No I'm not saying a monarchy should interfere btw. You were the one who thinks it would be worse without them (which sounds like you believe they already do interfere politically)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've explained my particular point, I don't believe they do have a huge influence on how we live in the UK, I do not believe they have an influence (nor should should they) but they are a benefit to our position in the world globally as a nation.
Now I've answered your question, how about answering mine rather than completely ignore it?
posted on 28/7/22
Also that was a terribly worded point, my coffee finished brewing mid way through
posted on 28/7/22
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, she is Head or Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, she is Head or Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But has no control over them. None what so ever.
posted on 28/7/22
haha idiot
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she controls the armed forces, i hope she uses them when the day comes, get rid of the traitors!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, she is Head or Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But has no control over them. None what so ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No that's not strictly true. She has ultimate control of the armed forces by "by advice of the cabinet".
I believe it's also the monarch that would declare war on a country, again "by advice of the cabinet".
So whilst she doesn't make active decisions and is guided by elected officials (for better or worse) saying she's no control over the armed forces isn't strictly correct.
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 55 seconds ago
haha idiot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be you.
posted on 28/7/22
she can get the canadians to come wedgie vidic aswell
posted on 28/7/22
No that's not strictly true
…
It actually is. The Secretary of State for Defence has control of the UK Armed Forces.
posted on 28/7/22
at her whim you moron
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 6 seconds ago
No that's not strictly true
…
It actually is. The Secretary of State for Defence has control of the UK Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Via the Queen who is commander-in-chief. In practical terms, you're arguably right, but to say she has "no control" is wrong.
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
she can get the canadians to come wedgie vidic aswell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No she can not.
posted on 28/7/22
carry on and youll get a swirly aswell.
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 8 minutes ago
carry on and youll get a swirly aswell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you on about you burbling fool.
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 8 minutes ago
carry on and youll get a swirly aswell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you on about you burbling fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's trying to provoke the exact reaction you're giving him, stop replying
posted on 28/7/22
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 6 seconds ago
No that's not strictly true
…
It actually is. The Secretary of State for Defence has control of the UK Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Via the Queen who is commander-in-chief. In practical terms, you're arguably right, but to say she has "no control" is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She can declare war
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7