|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2022 16:30:34 GMT
Would love to see a 'Get them gone tomorrow' placard at a protest. Be very Fr Dougal .
Andrew sneaking in to see The passion of St Tibulus.
Careful now
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 11, 2022 19:08:26 GMT
Let me know when one of your elderly relatives die. I'll then create a thread that very day to argue about cancelling everything they stood for. I don't know you personally but judging by your views on this board your an absolute loser in life aren't you. The left love everyone but the English... What a load of old bollocks…….
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 11, 2022 19:09:38 GMT
Let me know when one of your elderly relatives die. I'll then create a thread that very day to argue about cancelling everything they stood for. I don't know you personally but judging by your views on this board your an absolute loser in life aren't you. The left love everyone but the English... Wrong. Again.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Sept 11, 2022 19:43:52 GMT
When’s a good time to start talking about this again now that the Queen has sadly passed? I know people get very precious about timelines after a death…….. I’m not sure there’s a need to talk about it, it’s not going to happen in our lifetimes I don’t imagine. What I do hope is that there is a more open relationship between the monarchy and the public and that stringent protocol is loosened in the coming years. Charles Will make a very good job of it I reckon….. and through time William will be even more in touch with the British Public. The Royals will be around for a long long time and so they should be. It’s a fantastic part of our heritage which should be embraced
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 11, 2022 21:08:28 GMT
Meanwhile....
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Sept 11, 2022 21:13:57 GMT
Now don’t get me wrong he’s a disgrace and an embarrassment however has anyone thought about how these sort of comments might affect Eugenie or is she just collateral damage. Clearly he’s just trying to console his daughter.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2022 21:46:53 GMT
I think what the events of the last few days have shown is that this country is mostly pro monarchy
Charles has helped his mother slim down the monarchy and will of course modernise it further with the help of William.
I can’t see there even being a debate on the matter. It seems the only valid reason to abolish the monarchy to replace it with an elected head of state is the fact that the family has such privilege on birth
The fact is for the most they are incredibly hardworking and most do good things for this country.
I would rather see a complete reform of the House of Lords removing all hereditary positions and some sort of elected house, maybe not by the public but by some sort of formal institution maybe similar to how USA congress confirms certain appointments.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Sept 12, 2022 0:57:42 GMT
Is there any data on how much they contribute to the economy versu how much they receive?
I’m sure it must exist.
I personally don’t care much for the monarchy, though I had the upmost respect for the Queen. In 20 years, I’ll probably have the same for Charles III.
Whilst I don’t care, I also don’t care enough to see them gone. What would it meaningfully benefit to anyone?
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Sept 12, 2022 6:22:00 GMT
Run a big brother for families and those with the most votes get the job for a few years. Democracy. The Windsors are free to re apply. I doubt they will though, apparently its a never ending work load. They deserve a break. If they dont apply or dont win and therefore lose their houses, they should be well looked after. Nothing less than straight to the top of the council house list will do. Then as we stop fetishising systemic inequality we can devise a taxation system where those with more, pay more. Thank you and RIP Queen Elizabeth II 🇬🇧
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 12, 2022 9:00:04 GMT
I watched this with a sense of pride.
Peterson sees himself as both a liberal and an Anglophile and it's not hard to feel a sense of national pride afterwards.
We should maintain the monarchy because of its archaic nature in a world of ever changing chaos. It is the crystalline amongst the fluidity of time
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 12, 2022 9:12:56 GMT
I think what the events of the last few days have shown is that this country is mostly pro monarchy Charles has helped his mother slim down the monarchy and will of course modernise it further with the help of William. I can’t see there even being a debate on the matter. It seems the only valid reason to abolish the monarchy to replace it with an elected head of state is the fact that the family has such privilege on birth The fact is for the most they are incredibly hardworking and most do good things for this country. I would rather see a complete reform of the House of Lords removing all hereditary positions and some sort of elected house, maybe not by the public but by some sort of formal institution maybe similar to how USA congress confirms certain appointments. I used to despise the monarchy in my youth as I saw them as the figurehead of the material unfairness that permeates society. As I got older I realised the paradox: we are all equal and unequal in equal measure. In short: life is unfair and some have more than I and some have less. We see it in our everyday interactions: some richer/poorer, attractive/ugly, intelligent/dim, athletic/lethargic, healthy/suffering The whole problem with material based politics is rooted in 19th century materialism and is designed to create an impossible, idealistic world of mass equality. What none of this Marxist, Trotskyist or Leninist ideologies do is to tell us how to be happy. Being equal won't make us happy because it's an impossibility. You can be poor and happy, wealthy and sad as well as vice versa The Lord's should be overhauled to ensure it is not the preserve of the elite. How we do this without laying it open to grubby, unprincipled, egotistical politicians is another matter
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 12, 2022 9:58:26 GMT
I think what the events of the last few days have shown is that this country is mostly pro monarchy Charles has helped his mother slim down the monarchy and will of course modernise it further with the help of William. I can’t see there even being a debate on the matter. It seems the only valid reason to abolish the monarchy to replace it with an elected head of state is the fact that the family has such privilege on birth The fact is for the most they are incredibly hardworking and most do good things for this country. I would rather see a complete reform of the House of Lords removing all hereditary positions and some sort of elected house, maybe not by the public but by some sort of formal institution maybe similar to how USA congress confirms certain appointments. I used to despise the monarchy in my youth as I saw them as the figurehead of the material unfairness that permeates society. As I got older I realised the paradox: we are all equal and unequal in equal measure. In short: life is unfair and some have more than I and some have less. We see it in our everyday interactions: some richer/poorer, attractive/ugly, intelligent/dim, athletic/lethargic, healthy/suffering The whole problem with material based politics is rooted in 19th century materialism and is designed to create an impossible, idealistic world of mass equality. What none of this Marxist, Trotskyist or Leninist ideologies do is to tell us how to be happy. Being equal won't make us happy because it's an impossibility. You can be poor and happy, wealthy and sad as well as vice versa The Lord's should be overhauled to ensure it is not the preserve of the elite. How we do this without laying it open to grubby, unprincipled, egotistical politicians is another matter You'll never get equality of outcome but as a society we should strive for equal opportunity. That starts in our education system from pre-school through to university, and carries on in the workplace with organisations that have a disproportionate amount of private school/Oxbridge graduates, amongst other things.......
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 12, 2022 10:25:46 GMT
2 things I've always really struggled with are Religion and Royalty.
The last week has made me think they are not too far apart.
Both seem to involve people believing they are somehow accountable to a greater being.
Royalty is a living person and Religion is something more spiritual.
But they are somehow similar, I am increasingly certain of it.
I can't lie, they are both Jack and the Beanstalk to me but I would defend anyone's right to believe in them.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Sept 12, 2022 12:40:22 GMT
I used to despise the monarchy in my youth as I saw them as the figurehead of the material unfairness that permeates society. As I got older I realised the paradox: we are all equal and unequal in equal measure. In short: life is unfair and some have more than I and some have less. We see it in our everyday interactions: some richer/poorer, attractive/ugly, intelligent/dim, athletic/lethargic, healthy/suffering The whole problem with material based politics is rooted in 19th century materialism and is designed to create an impossible, idealistic world of mass equality. What none of this Marxist, Trotskyist or Leninist ideologies do is to tell us how to be happy. Being equal won't make us happy because it's an impossibility. You can be poor and happy, wealthy and sad as well as vice versa The Lord's should be overhauled to ensure it is not the preserve of the elite. How we do this without laying it open to grubby, unprincipled, egotistical politicians is another matter You'll never get equality of outcome but as a society we should strive for equal opportunity. That starts in our education system from pre-school through to university, and carries on in the workplace with organisations that have a disproportionate amount of private school/Oxbridge graduates, amongst other things....... Totally agree with that. A lesson can be learnt from the USA where they tell kids that they are lucky enough to live in a country where anyone can be the president. They do fail to add the condition that you will need a few million dollars and the backing of a political party to do it, but yes it could be you. It's a complete example of what you are saying. In this country their are too many in parliament who have not experienced much of life itself. I still personally believe that Party politics is designed to keep anyone with a different approach out.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Sept 12, 2022 13:30:38 GMT
This is not a having a go at the recently deceased queen.
But it is why i think the entire charade is a farce. They do not want to 'erode' their £28bn wealth by paying taxes, and have their own legal clause to help them.
(same as the duke of westminster who avoided £4bn in death duties.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Sept 12, 2022 13:37:25 GMT
This is not a having a go at the recently deceased queen. But it is why i think the entire charade is a farce. They do not want to 'erode' their £28bn wealth by paying taxes, and have their own legal clause to help them. (same as the duke of westminster who avoided £4bn in death duties. If its a legal clause then it would have been made by parliament not by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Sept 12, 2022 13:41:11 GMT
This is not a having a go at the recently deceased queen. But it is why i think the entire charade is a farce. They do not want to 'erode' their £28bn wealth by paying taxes, and have their own legal clause to help them. (same as the duke of westminster who avoided £4bn in death duties. If its a legal clause then it would have been made by parliament not by themselves. how generous of parliament to do that! but the royal family do have form for getting their own way in secret. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealthit is only my opinion that they should pay their way if they 'work hard' and receive public money. Not have Parliament pass laws to prevent the erosion of their wealth.
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 12, 2022 14:07:33 GMT
I used to despise the monarchy in my youth as I saw them as the figurehead of the material unfairness that permeates society. As I got older I realised the paradox: we are all equal and unequal in equal measure. In short: life is unfair and some have more than I and some have less. We see it in our everyday interactions: some richer/poorer, attractive/ugly, intelligent/dim, athletic/lethargic, healthy/suffering The whole problem with material based politics is rooted in 19th century materialism and is designed to create an impossible, idealistic world of mass equality. What none of this Marxist, Trotskyist or Leninist ideologies do is to tell us how to be happy. Being equal won't make us happy because it's an impossibility. You can be poor and happy, wealthy and sad as well as vice versa The Lord's should be overhauled to ensure it is not the preserve of the elite. How we do this without laying it open to grubby, unprincipled, egotistical politicians is another matter You'll never get equality of outcome but as a society we should strive for equal opportunity. That starts in our education system from pre-school through to university, and carries on in the workplace with organisations that have a disproportionate amount of private school/Oxbridge graduates, amongst other things....... Yes. There are only two ways to ascend the class ladder: education and entrepreneurship (Winning the lottery too but we'll discount that as it happens so rarely to make a real impact) We should strive towards giving children every opportunity but only those academically gifted will benefit. How do we get the bottom 25% (below the 90-110 IQ average) to move through the social strata? Do we bring the gifted down or them up? How? Societies will always value some occupations over others and pay accordingly. We value intellect in ours and so those with an unfair genetic/environmental advantage will always prevail. Manifest equality should only exist in a court of law or in the eyes of a/your God. It's a nice ideal on the face of it, trying to strive for universal equality but it has led to some of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated (Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc). We should not abandon trying to make the world a better place but it has to be governed by common sense over dogma.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Sept 12, 2022 14:51:49 GMT
This is not a having a go at the recently deceased queen. But it is why i think the entire charade is a farce. They do not want to 'erode' their £28bn wealth by paying taxes, and have their own legal clause to help them. (same as the duke of westminster who avoided £4bn in death duties. Royal family in shock privilege sensation!! I think the Duke of Westminster is a different issue, their family fortune is in a trust fund which means they don't "own" the wealth so don't pay any tax but do have access to the money. It is basically a legalised tax fraud! The Getty family have a similar set up as brilliantly shown in the TV Drama series Trust.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 12, 2022 14:56:00 GMT
You'll never get equality of outcome but as a society we should strive for equal opportunity. That starts in our education system from pre-school through to university, and carries on in the workplace with organisations that have a disproportionate amount of private school/Oxbridge graduates, amongst other things....... Yes. There are only two ways to ascend the class ladder: education and entrepreneurship (Winning the lottery too but we'll discount that as it happens so rarely to make a real impact) We should strive towards giving children every opportunity but only those academically gifted will benefit. How do we get the bottom 25% (below the 90-110 IQ average) to move through the social strata? Do we bring the gifted down or them up? How? Societies will always value some occupations over others and pay accordingly. We value intellect in ours and so those with an unfair genetic/environmental advantage will always prevail. Manifest equality should only exist in a court of law or in the eyes of a/your God. It's a nice ideal on the face of it, trying to strive for universal equality but it has led to some of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated (Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc). We should not abandon trying to make the world a better place but it has to be governed by common sense over dogma. the third way is to 'marry money'
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Sept 12, 2022 15:04:50 GMT
You'll never get equality of outcome but as a society we should strive for equal opportunity. That starts in our education system from pre-school through to university, and carries on in the workplace with organisations that have a disproportionate amount of private school/Oxbridge graduates, amongst other things....... How do we get the bottom 25% (below the 90-110 IQ average) to move through the social strata? Do we bring the gifted down or them up? How? I think there has to be a bit of both. We have to make sure that the reasons for things being how they are now are investigated properly, rather than doing what is normally done with ‘problems’ if I can call them that which is simply painting over the cracks. From an educational perspective, i think I’m right in saying that colleges in the US have to guarantee so many places to black people, even if their qualifications/knowledge is less than that of the first white person to miss out. That’s papering over the cracks. I’d rather they looked at why whites are getting the better qualifying grades. Is it culture? Can it be fixed? How? As for our system, it’s not fair that the rich can afford certain levels of studying that the poor can’t. Could we have a system where the poor’s tuition fees etc are waived, or at least reduced by an income based percentage? But also, if at the lower study level of schooling the poor are getting lesser results, look at why. Like the above, culture, accessibility, etc? This is probably all for a different thread anyway, as I’m not sure what influence the King can have over this. If it was my way he could have finished his speech today by telling them all to sort out the absolute shit-show they’re running.
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Sept 12, 2022 15:17:58 GMT
You'll never get equality of outcome but as a society we should strive for equal opportunity. That starts in our education system from pre-school through to university, and carries on in the workplace with organisations that have a disproportionate amount of private school/Oxbridge graduates, amongst other things....... Yes. There are only two ways to ascend the class ladder: education and entrepreneurship (Winning the lottery too but we'll discount that as it happens so rarely to make a real impact) We should strive towards giving children every opportunity but only those academically gifted will benefit. How do we get the bottom 25% (below the 90-110 IQ average) to move through the social strata? Do we bring the gifted down or them up? How? Societies will always value some occupations over others and pay accordingly. We value intellect in ours and so those with an unfair genetic/environmental advantage will always prevail. Manifest equality should only exist in a court of law or in the eyes of a/your God. It's a nice ideal on the face of it, trying to strive for universal equality but it has led to some of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated (Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc). We should not abandon trying to make the world a better place but it has to be governed by common sense over dogma. While I agree with the general thrust of this, intellect / academic prowess is not commonplace amongst most people who’ve ‘succeeded’. At least not the ones I meet! Genuine equality of opportunity would begin with creating a state education system to rival independent schools. Generally, bright kids from state schools don’t do as well as less able kids with a private education. Some of that is the entrenched privilege in the system, of course, but removing the need to ‘go private’ in order to get a decent education would be a start.
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 12, 2022 16:30:06 GMT
How do we get the bottom 25% (below the 90-110 IQ average) to move through the social strata? Do we bring the gifted down or them up? How? I think there has to be a bit of both. We have to make sure that the reasons for things being how they are now are investigated properly, rather than doing what is normally done with ‘problems’ if I can call them that which is simply painting over the cracks. From an educational perspective, i think I’m right in saying that colleges in the US have to guarantee so many places to black people, even if their qualifications/knowledge is less than that of the first white person to miss out. That’s papering over the cracks. I’d rather they looked at why whites are getting the better qualifying grades. Is it culture? Can it be fixed? How? As for our system, it’s not fair that the rich can afford certain levels of studying that the poor can’t. Could we have a system where the poor’s tuition fees etc are waived, or at least reduced by an income based percentage? But also, if at the lower study level of schooling the poor are getting lesser results, look at why. Like the above, culture, accessibility, etc? This is probably all for a different thread anyway, as I’m not sure what influence the King can have over this. If it was my way he could have finished his speech today by telling them all to sort out the absolute shit-show they’re running. A lot of inequality is cultural. Non-white ethnic groups generally value education. I was the first person in my maternal and paternal families to go to university. Perhaps this needs to be addressed as the statistics don't lie: www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/higher-education/entry-rates-into-higher-education/latest Main facts and figures pupils from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest entry rate into higher education from 2006 to 2021 in every year from 2007 to 2021, white pupils had the lowest entry rate into higher education in 2021, the entry rates for all ethnic groups were higher than in the previous year – they were also higher than in 2006, the first year covered by this data
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Sept 12, 2022 16:30:06 GMT
Yes. There are only two ways to ascend the class ladder: education and entrepreneurship (Winning the lottery too but we'll discount that as it happens so rarely to make a real impact) We should strive towards giving children every opportunity but only those academically gifted will benefit. How do we get the bottom 25% (below the 90-110 IQ average) to move through the social strata? Do we bring the gifted down or them up? How? Societies will always value some occupations over others and pay accordingly. We value intellect in ours and so those with an unfair genetic/environmental advantage will always prevail. Manifest equality should only exist in a court of law or in the eyes of a/your God. It's a nice ideal on the face of it, trying to strive for universal equality but it has led to some of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated (Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc). We should not abandon trying to make the world a better place but it has to be governed by common sense over dogma. While I agree with the general thrust of this, intellect / academic prowess is not commonplace amongst most people who’ve ‘succeeded’. At least not the ones I meet! Genuine equality of opportunity would begin with creating a state education system to rival independent schools. Generally, bright kids from state schools don’t do as well as less able kids with a private education. Some of that is the entrenched privilege in the system, of course, but removing the need to ‘go private’ in order to get a decent education would be a start. Sadly I don't believe the quality of education has as much influence as the actual school you went to. Eton for example notoriously has a book of past alumni and a process to ensure that all alumni do favours for each other. Its worse than the masons. The old school tie is alive and well in politics.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Sept 12, 2022 16:30:29 GMT
This is not a having a go at the recently deceased queen. But it is why i think the entire charade is a farce. They do not want to 'erode' their £28bn wealth by paying taxes, and have their own legal clause to help them. (same as the duke of westminster who avoided £4bn in death duties. Can I not pay my energy bills this winter as I dont want to erode my wealth?!!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 12, 2022 16:34:33 GMT
While I agree with the general thrust of this, intellect / academic prowess is not commonplace amongst most people who’ve ‘succeeded’. At least not the ones I meet! Genuine equality of opportunity would begin with creating a state education system to rival independent schools. Generally, bright kids from state schools don’t do as well as less able kids with a private education. Some of that is the entrenched privilege in the system, of course, but removing the need to ‘go private’ in order to get a decent education would be a start. Sadly I don't believe the quality of education has as much influence as the actual school you went to. Eton for example notoriously has a book of past alumni and a process to ensure that all alumni do favours for each other. Its worse than the masons. The old school tie is alive and well in politics. It must start everywhere - Parliament included. If one of the criteria for becoming an MP was either born and family in constituencies or at least have paid council tax there for 5 years you would have more local MPs not just posh university graduates from London. Of any party. As it is now both labour and conservatives parachute their chosen ones where ever they want
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 12, 2022 16:37:26 GMT
Yes. There are only two ways to ascend the class ladder: education and entrepreneurship (Winning the lottery too but we'll discount that as it happens so rarely to make a real impact) We should strive towards giving children every opportunity but only those academically gifted will benefit. How do we get the bottom 25% (below the 90-110 IQ average) to move through the social strata? Do we bring the gifted down or them up? How? Societies will always value some occupations over others and pay accordingly. We value intellect in ours and so those with an unfair genetic/environmental advantage will always prevail. Manifest equality should only exist in a court of law or in the eyes of a/your God. It's a nice ideal on the face of it, trying to strive for universal equality but it has led to some of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated (Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc). We should not abandon trying to make the world a better place but it has to be governed by common sense over dogma. While I agree with the general thrust of this, intellect / academic prowess is not commonplace amongst most people who’ve ‘succeeded’. At least not the ones I meet! Genuine equality of opportunity would begin with creating a state education system to rival independent schools. Generally, bright kids from state schools don’t do as well as less able kids with a private education. Some of that is the entrenched privilege in the system, of course, but removing the need to ‘go private’ in order to get a decent education would be a start. Agree state schooling needs improvement. However would you want your kids going down the South Korean/Taiwanese/japanese route with pre and after school tutorials with high pressure on achievement? Failure being seen as shameful? asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Youth-suicide-Asian-teens-crack-under-growing-family-pressureThere is more to life than status, material wealth and it by no means guarantees a happy life. We need to overhaul our beliefs about existence in general and step back from the game of Life
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Sept 12, 2022 16:37:52 GMT
Sadly I don't believe the quality of education has as much influence as the actual school you went to. Eton for example notoriously has a book of past alumni and a process to ensure that all alumni do favours for each other. Its worse than the masons. The old school tie is alive and well in politics. It must start everywhere - Parliament included. If one of the criteria for becoming an MP was either born and family in constituencies or at least have paid council tax there for 5 years you would have more local MPs not just posh university graduates from London. Of any party. As it is now both labour and conservatives parachute their chosen ones where ever they want I agree about parliament being the place to start. It's funded by us and for us. Sadly again those already in the door have no motivation to change the system. How would you get that legislation through?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 12, 2022 16:38:00 GMT
Run a big brother for families and those with the most votes get the job for a few years. Democracy. The Windsors are free to re apply. I doubt they will though, apparently its a never ending work load. They deserve a break. If they dont apply or dont win and therefore lose their houses, they should be well looked after. Nothing less than straight to the top of the council house list will do. Then as we stop fetishising systemic inequality we can devise a taxation system where those with more, pay more. Thank you and RIP Queen Elizabeth II 🇬🇧 Wouldn't apply for a Big Brother run off? Do me a favour. Fergie and Meghan would be all over it.
|
|
|
Post by Hereward the Wake ᛊᛏᛟᚲᛖ on Sept 13, 2022 10:30:06 GMT
I can't see the Monarchy being abolished in any of our life times despite what a small minority might want.
God save the King
|
|