The Queens Jubilee

[kj]

Dont be stupid dude. You know thats not true, if that was the case then it would have already happened and you know that is the case.

That is the most rediculous idea that i have ever heard. Zero tolerance would be a good thing, but you are taking it to the extreme. You forget that the labour party is a leftist government, the very idea of restricting political freedom is virtually an extreme right idea.

Think about it.

[Red_Baron]

I say keep the Monarchy 'cause they bring loads of tourists from around the globe and they all spend loads of cash in silly wee gift shops and most of the VAT will get spent somewhere (we hope). The way i look at it if we went all Republican and voted a president in we'd all end up being dissapointed and he/she would end up spending more money than the Royals.

Plus there's always the chance that I could get a knighthood for being a hero and all. How does Sir Banana Man sound?

[kj]

Sir Banana Man, yeah, an we all know how you'd get the queen to give you a knight hood <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Yeah, well, the monarchy do bring in a great deal of money from toursists and everything, but do they really need to be so involved in the running of the country? I mean, surely that is what the Government is there to do. Also, i think the house of lords should be dropped, cos they seem to be filled with old right wing politicians that just want to get in the way of the current Labour government everytime they try and pass a new bill or law. Thats just so annoying. The Government should have the final say on everything, not the Queen and the House of Lords.

[Red_Baron]

I agree with you on the House of Lords, I think the people should hae the final say. A refarendum should be called for every big desition, esspecially when it will effect everybody, that way we all get information and get a chance to decide. or make me PM and I'll make life very peachy.

But if we decided to reliquish the Queens powers over government i say her last move should be to allow home secratries to decide how long some prisoners should stay in jail.

[Andy Anarchy aka Haggis]

Left? Indeed they were once but Tony Blair doesnt know the meaning of what his party once stood for.

ok im pointing out an extream situation but i dont trust Tony Blair at all. He has kept his promise - he WOULDNT INCREASE INCOME TAX.....no, but he has risen just about everything else! Now he wants to ban Happy Hour in pubs? He wants the lady who was injured in the rail crash to be silenced... and it goes on.

He is gradualy sliding to the right and noone seems to be bothered.

YES i am talking shit but u know.... most Kennedys are arseholes.

[kj]

I'll reply to that when i can think of a good comeback, but did you know the Queen inherited £50 million from her dear old mother when she passed away? I mean £50 MILLION <img border="0" alt="[Eek]" title="" src="graemlins/eek.gif" /> , thats a lot of money, i wonder what she will do with that, no doubt part of it would cover the amount of cash she forked out on the huge jubilee celebrations... <img border="0" alt="[Freak]" title="" src="graemlins/freak.gif" />

[rotschreck24]

That's £50million she DIDN'T pay inheritance tax on ... unlike what happens to the rest of us, who actually have to (god forbid) WORK for a living!? ... bitch ...

[Red_Baron]

Let's not forget that many of the Royals run and maintain various charaties here and abroad which help many disadvantaged people. Without their status as Royals I doubt many of these charaties would be as well recognised as they are throughout the world. There is a problem in the world with very little distribution of wealth but the Royals are not to blame and they do play more of an active role in society than some realise.

We should of course be grateful we live in a rational democracy, in some countries we would all be dead for even having such a discussion. If you want everyone to be equal why not try a Communist government, we'll all go out to the farms and grow what we need and give the rest to the state, how many people would be willing to do that?

[rotschreck24]

"Let's not forget that many of the Royals run and maintain various charaties here and abroad which help many disadvantaged people."

1) No they don't - they provide a figurehead. They do no admin, finance, cold-calling, campaiging etc - the work that actually sustains charities.

Without their status as Royals I doubt many of these charaties would be as well recognised as they are throughout the world.

2) Perhaps true but isn't this just a sad reflection of humanity if we are only willing to donate money to a Royal-endorsed charity?

There is a problem in the world with very little distribution of wealth but the Royals are not to blame and they do play more of an active role in society than some realise.

3) There is a massive problem with inequality and the Royals are one of the most obvious symptoms of it! They represent the class-system and the power of inherited wealth - they have massive influence that they are open to abuse - unlike a president they are not electable nor accountable -we cannot vote them out! It is morally repugnant that we (the taxpayer) are ACTUALLY PAYING one of the richest families in the world to do ... what?
Anyone see the recent bullshit about the Kents? Renting their 5 bedrooms & 6 reception rooms in Kensington Palace (from the Queen) for a measly £100 a week? Figures might be a little off, but you get the idea ... another example of us subsidising the lavish lifestyle of the rich!! I wish I could afford that for £100 a week ...

[Red_Baron]

I think you'll find that a lot of admin and publicity work is done bye the prince of Wales and his late Wife, it is true that they don't do everything but no director or executive does.

Second point, I said well recognised not well off. People will always donate money to a good cause but they need to find out about this cause first of all, they Royal family provide the perect platform for international publicity.

When was the last time the Queen abused her position of power? every other system in the world , be it a Republic, a Communist State or a Military State, has corruption rife in it. Just because we elect someone to represent our country, it does not mean they will be responsible, fair and they will more than likely spend more money than the Monarchy who attract billions in tourist revenue and while we do live in a class led society lets not forget that we also live in a racist, sexist very narrow minded society which is more destructive.

Finally I'd rather trust someone whi has lived their whole life in power, people who suddenly have it thrust upon them have a tendancy to abuse it and get over greedy and corrupt. Russia got rid of their monarcy for the right reasons but the guy who took over was worse, Afganistan also denounced their monarchy do we want a state like that?

[rotschreck24]

When was the last time the Queen abused her position of power?

...when she let her family live in a building for practically nothing when both that building and that family are publically paid for ... every time she opens her mouth to make some kind of moral pronouncement - because everyone (i.e. politicians, media etc) pay so much attention to what she says, she should not be making judgements that might therefore affect others as she is nto in that position of power and trust because of any democratic mandate ...

... with regards to other systems of power and rule always being worse - what rubbish! Ireland is a republic - is it therefore a despotism? And there are plenty of countries where their monarchy is just as corrupt as any other form of rule ...

... I would think it is buckingham palace etc that attract the tourists - not the Royal Family itself, who are not constantly on show ... so there is no good economic argument for sustaining them.

Cheers!

[AlanG]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Bannana Man:
<strong>I think you'll find that a lot of admin and publicity work is done bye the prince of Wales and his late Wife, it is true that they don't do everything but no director or executive does.
</strong>
thats true, di used to go on two week holidays to foreign climes where she woyuld spend 2 days publicising a charity, very noble of her *cough*

<strong>
When was the last time the Queen abused her position of power?
</strong>
When she had her lifestyle financed for her in the largest dole pillage in the UK.
When she didnt pay inheritence tax on properties owned by her mother, paid for by us.
When she doesnt pay road tax.
When she has servents at her beck and call.
need i go on?

<strong>
Just because we elect someone to represent our country, it does not mean they will be responsible, fair
</strong>
nope but it means if they arent we can get rid of them in 4 years, with the monarchy we need to wait for the monarch to die before its heir takes over

<strong>
and they will more than likely spend more money than the Monarchy
</strong>
you mean on hospitals and schools and stuff? Cos Tony Blairs on about 140k a year.

<strong>
who attract billions in tourist revenue
</strong>
link please

<strong>
and while we do live in a class led society lets not forget that we also live in a racist, sexist very narrow minded society which is more destructive.
</strong>
all of which are immoral and should be stamped out

<strong>
Finally I'd rather trust someone whi has lived their whole life in power, people who suddenly have it thrust upon them have a tendancy to abuse it and get over greedy and corrupt.
</strong>
the queen hasnt lived her whole life in power, she took over when her dad died.....

<strong>
Russia got rid of their monarcy for the right reasons but the guy who took over was worse,
</strong>
what has this to do with it? France got rid of theirs and now live in a democratic republic.
Dont make strawmen.

<strong>
Afganistan also denounced their monarchy do we want a state like that?</strong>
well obviously we do, the UK and the USA helped fund the overthrowing of the afghan monarchy. They also financed and trained Bin Laden, and the mujahadeen (spelling?) in the war against the soviets. The northern alliance when in power gave Bin Laden freedom of the country, the Taliban who replaced although still a terrible regime were cheered upon their success because the NA were so bad. The US then decides "talibam you = evil" even though several left wing groups have been campaigning against both them and the NA for years. Attacks, on the side of the NA
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[Red_Baron]

There was corruption in Ireland before Bertie took charge, give him time.

I have to disagree with what you say in respect to her abusing her position of power. I think the Queen has seen more of the world than you or I therefore she is better placed to make judgements if she sees fit and if a government chooses to support these views then we must trust them as we have democratically voted them in to represent our views if we don't like what they do we vote them out.

I know there are many other heads of state who are very corrupt but that's my point exactally, what's so wrong with having a head of state who is respected throught the globe, who is neither racist, sexist or otherwise predjudiced towards others. A lot of people think that tourists simply come to this country to see the palace, but without a monarchy, these buildings would just be bricks and mortar. How many people traveled here for the jubilee? quite a few million. Many other countries are envious of our monarchy, America being the main one, they represent a history and heritage that the USA doesn't have.

Everyone moans about the queen and her family living in houses which we pay for, when in fact they pay for themselves by attracting people to this country who eventually boost our income.

There are more destructive people in our world than the Queen who has done and is doing a good job for our country. Maybe we should pay attention to the real problems in the world because while we have a class system in this country there are people in the world who would die for the chance to live in freedom and maybe to have at least 1 good meal a day

[AlanG]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Bannana Man:
<strong>I have to disagree with what you say in respect to her abusing her position of power. I think the Queen has seen more of the world than you or I therefore she is better placed to make judgements if she sees fit and if a government chooses to support these views then we must trust them as we have democratically voted them in to represent our views if we don't like what they do we vote them out.
</strong>
exactly, why nto have an election to vote on wether to have a queen or not, it isnt democratic so has no place in an otherwise democratic society

<strong>
I know there are many other heads of state who are very corrupt but that's my point exactally, what's so wrong with having a head of state who is respected throught the globe, who is neither racist, sexist or otherwise predjudiced towards others.
</strong>
one word - Phillip

<strong>
A lot of people think that tourists simply come to this country to see the palace, but without a monarchy, these buildings would just be bricks and mortar.
</strong>
they would be very lavish houses owned by the state who could rent them, making a huge income.

<strong>
How many people traveled here for the jubilee? quite a few million.
</strong>
1milli