Wednesday, 6 June 2012

"Why I'm a monarchist.."


Joel Zumokuta Hall
Why I'm a monarchist: pretty simple really. We have a head of state who is trained practically from birth to fulfil that role, cannot favour a political party, cannot donate to paties, removes the ability of government to do anything it likes, cannot be bribed with honours, acts as ambassador in state occaisions, always acts with dignity, works 24 hours a day, is patron of hundreds of charities, is advised by lifelong officials who have a long term working relationship with Her Majesty, cannot lie to get out of scrapes unlike spineless politicans, and has to remain politically unbiased in law, cannot force the government to act unlawfully or for personal motives. Elected politicians on the other hand, and the most underhand, dishonest and corrupt people I've ever seen and have the nerve to call themselves 'Right Honourable'. I'd hate to have a party in charge with complete control over the country.
 ·  ·  · Sunday at 19:39 via Mobile
  • Jock Campbell, Joanne Blakeman, Jim Buntin and 20 others like this.
    • Damien Hill Well said :D
      Sunday at 19:40 ·  · 1
    • Anthony Adshead how do you stop the royal family being like that, how well do you really know these people you claim are so above MP's?
      Sunday at 19:41 · 
    • Jim Buntin Best comment \i've seen for a while. Well said Joel.
      Sunday at 19:43 ·  · 3
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Why do I need to know them Anthony?
      Sunday at 19:46 via Mobile · 
    • Lisa Lang Well said mate xx
      Sunday at 19:49 ·  · 2
    • Steven Preece I oppose the idea of anyone being born into power and influence. Yes she [the queen] does not hold all the powers of parliament but she still has some 'very useful' ones to call upon. She will prob never use them but it frightens me to know that she could.
      Sunday at 19:49 ·  · 2
    • Anthony Adshead you said "Elected politicians on the other hand, and the most underhand, dishonest and corrupt people I've ever seen and have the nerve to call themselves 'Right Honourable'. I'd hate to have a party in charge with complete control over the country." which I agree, but I was thinking of people like prince andrew who has lunch with war criminals and dicators, as well as dealing in arms on behalf of this country seemingly, so my point is we only get the royal PR, for all we know the royal family could be as corrupts or even more corrupt than any MP you mention, even fergie was caught selling access to privilage.
      Sunday at 19:54 ·  · 6
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall That's my only gripe with royalty really... The hangers on, minor royals and extended family who abuse their privaliges. I did love how the Queen recently evicted Princess Pushy 'though hehe. But minor royals should be reined in more. Having said that, they have no powers or political say, and so they're really just like us and entitled to screw up now and then...
      Sunday at 19:58 via Mobile ·  · 2
    • Anthony Adshead the people in the royal family could be really nice, its the principle of royalty I have a problem with of some one being born into something which makes them think they are above the rest of us whilst holding vast wealth as it re enforces class and therefore poverty.
      Sunday at 20:07 ·  · 4
    • Julie Nelson thats is about evolution not revolution
      Sunday at 20:09 ·  · 1
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Anthony... The Queen IS above us, she's the head of state. As for the others, except for those in direct line to the throne, they are mostly hangers on, but have certain roles in Britain ordered by the Queen.
      Sunday at 20:17 via Mobile · 
    • Anthony Adshead I do not consent to her being my head of state thank you.
      Sunday at 20:19 ·  · 4
    • Mick Constable That’ll make a huge difference then :lol
      Sunday at 20:20 ·  · 2
    • Dawn Hardy We have the Royal Navy etc.Not the conserv,lib Navy etc and long may it continue. form a proud wife of a retired member of the Royal Navy
      Sunday at 20:23 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Those titles are not really to do with control of the armed forces to be fair. P.s. As I keep telling you, Royal Marines are the best, but as your husband was a green lidded sailor, all is forgiven ;-)
      Sunday at 20:25 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • Barbara Smith ‎Joel Zumokuta Hall....The Queen isn't above me...what power has she got none whatsoever....she has bodily functions the same as everybody needs to use the bathroom like anyone else...you and others are so deluded...it cost £3.5 million for the last couple of days out of tax payers money which is a total disgrace...
      Sunday at 20:26 ·  · 5
    • Tam Raymond Why I'm opposed to a Monarchy; equally simple:

      They are undemocratic.
      They are privileged and elitist snobs who have no way of understanding any issue affecting "ordinary" people.
      They only mix with their own.
      They are anti-Catholic.
      They are the heads of the Church of England.
      They profit from their positions, and not always within moral or legal acceptability.
      They insult people all around the world by racist and snobbish outpourings.
      Their very existence encourages less enlightened people to wallow in servitude and low self-esteem.
      They belong to the Hunting-Shooting-Country-Toff types, whom I find it easy to despise.
      They represent an intrinsically English phenomenon of worshipping their "betters".
      They are an anachronism in the 21st century.
      They're a huge hit with readers of "celeb" magazines because they're as shallow as all the other "celebs".
      Unless they, and the Lords and elitists go, England will never grow up and reach a civilised society.
      Sunday at 20:28 ·  · 10
    • Dawn Hardy I no but they sound better with Royal and the Services serve the Crown and it's people not the politions.Look Joel Royal marines need the Navy.Not the other way round .R you a green lid I forget
      Sunday at 20:29 · 
    • Tam Raymond What's wrong with British Navy anyway?
      Sunday at 20:31 · 
    • Lynn Higgins Sorry to burst ure bubble Joel Zumokuta Hall but she is NOT and never will be my Queen > I will bow to NO ONE on this earth the only man I will do that to is the big man upstairs with his Queen of Heaven. Allmen are born free and equal NEVER forget that!
      Sunday at 20:32 ·  · 4
    • Alun Lewis tell us who is this god like creature joel???
      Sunday at 20:32 ·  · 1
    • Milly Peede she does not remove the ability of the government to do anything they like, she goes along with it. She has no say at all in the running of the country. She should step down and retire gracefully. She is a disgrace. The Welfare Reform Bill was her chance to protect her most vulnerable people and she failed us. Thats why I am not a royalist
      Sunday at 20:32 ·  · 3
    • Steven Preece here here
      Sunday at 20:33 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Dawn, the only time you need the navy is for going on cruises between wars ;-)
      Sunday at 20:33 via Mobile · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Tam, I have to say that's a pretty naive post. Most of those points fit politicians more than monarchs...
      Sunday at 20:34 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • Anthony Adshead they all hang around the same garden parties and go to eaton
      Sunday at 20:35 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall I seriously doubt the Queen went to Eton ;-)
      Sunday at 20:36 via Mobile ·  · 2
    • Tam Raymond No you don't Joel Zumokuta Hall
      Sunday at 20:36 · 
    • Tam Raymond JFK or ER1?
      Sunday at 20:37 · 
    • Dawn Hardy Joel it's a good job I like you so much Joel.Hang on Anthony Princes William and Harry are serving members of our armed forces.And work bloody hard doing so
      Sunday at 20:37 ·  · 1
    • Lynn Higgins Is this man for real?? what planet do u live on that fiasco on the Thames today would have fed half the world for a year and that family and their forbearers have lived off the backs of the working class for hundreds of years!
      Sunday at 20:37 ·  · 3
    • Jim Buntin A simple google search would prove Joel correct
      Sunday at 20:37 ·  · 1
    • Anthony Adshead maybe the queen didn't but most of the rest of our so called ruling class did or went to some public school at some time or other
      Sunday at 20:38 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond Eton? Who's on about Eton lol?
      Sunday at 20:38 · 
    • Anthony Adshead my spelling its crap lol, can't be arsed had a day of royal rubbish to put up with, its hard work being a republican lol
      Sunday at 20:39 ·  · 1
    • Lynn Higgins Who cares where she went to school,if she did, she certainly doesnt care about the schools that we all attend and what quality of education our kids are getting and wherever they went to school guess what?? we paid for it!!
      Sunday at 20:40 ·  · 1
    • Jim Buntin I think the Queen may feel differently to that Lynn.
      Sunday at 20:41 · 
    • Tam Raymond Exactly Lynn...she wasn't at St Genghis Comprehensive when I was there anyway!
      Sunday at 20:41 ·  · 1
    • Lynn Higgins Dont care what she feels Jim Buntin its the truth dont wish any of them any harm but they should just bow out and let us become the republic we deserve to be
      Sunday at 20:43 ·  · 1
    • Jim Buntin Would that be a republic headed by didgy statesmenLynn Higgins?
      Sunday at 20:47 · 
    • Jim Buntin ‎*dodgy
      Sunday at 20:48 · 
    • Mick Constable The arrogance of the minority republicans is astounding.

      If you want a republic get enough support and vote for one, otherwise simply wallow in your own self pity.

      I’d suggest you get used to the latter though because the former is half a century away at best.

      And incase anyone missed it, the number of young people out celebrating today gives me huge confidence the monarchy is here to stay for a long time to come.
      Sunday at 20:51 ·  · 1
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Why would anyone need Google to confirm the Queen didn't attend an all boys school?
      Sunday at 20:51 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • Mick Constable Also, some might not know how to google, they probably think its some form of mouth wash
      Sunday at 20:52 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall How do you know what the Queen thinks of schools? She isn't the Education Secretary. Besides, the princes still had to pass the same entrance exams as any Eton pupil to gain a place.
      Sunday at 20:54 via Mobile · 
    • Jim Buntin I wonder if the Queen conveyed those points to you on the telephone last night Lynn Higgins or are you merely surmising the Queen's thoughts?
      Sunday at 20:57 · 
    • Jim Buntin ‎Mick, your last comment was epic. :D
      Sunday at 21:04 · 
    • Tam Raymond ‎"And incase anyone missed it, the number of young people out celebrating today gives me huge confidence the monarchy is here to stay for a long time to come."

      I missed that Mick, how I missed your huge confidence I do not know, but I did.
      Sunday at 21:06 ·  · 1
    • John O'Neill I cant bring myself to care for an unelected foreign monarch who sits a golden (not literally) throne whilst many of her "subjects" live in poverty at best. I do not hate them for who they are but what they are and they are nothing more than a medieval relic :-)
      Sunday at 21:08 ·  · 1
    • Anthony Adshead For a start the royals have had good PR and the backing of state media for a very long time now and I think this was notched up a bit in 1917, so until republicans get an even playing field there are bound to be lot more people with a bios towards the royals.

      And today there were crowds, even as a republic they would still have been a mood for a party, how many of them were just out to have good time regardless of the logic behind it?

      Also people complain about the idea of some dodgy president as a head of state, why not keep the current post as prime minister as prime minister or even maybe something else?, then above this why don't we why have selection of spokes persons ,who have been nationally elected for the good things they have done for our nation?who take it in turn to lead stuff as an honer to them, just because a system is in place it does not mean that there is not a better way of doing things.
      Sunday at 21:09 · 
    • Mick Constable SOme people will always live in poverty, I bet you dont, and if not, why not ?
      Sunday at 21:09 · 
    • Anthony Adshead ‎*why error
      Sunday at 21:10 · 
    • Mick Constable Tam, simply peruse some of todays pictures on the news website, you’ll see for yourself which generation is most represented, you may be suprised, as I was pleased
      Sunday at 21:11 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Some republican arguments really are bizarre. A foreign monarch? We're going back nearly 200 years for that. My grandparents come from India. Am I therefore an Indian? And most people live in poverty? This may shock you, but NOT EVERYONE CAN BE WEALTHY. I know the average supermarket cashier may resent people who are loaded, but how much money do you think you're worth to the company?
      I myself am stoney broke. I have zilch behind me. So what? Should I whinge about poverty and expect something for nothing? Or cry that it's 'not fair'? No. I can accept life for what it is, and not make up my political opinions based solely on resentment, or oddly held beliefs, like the Queen 'scrounging' off the state. The Queen of course WORKS for the state. And has a palace to run. What about all those who are employed directly by the crown? Should they too become victims of republicans strange utopian dreams of 'democracy'? What about legal system which understands the crown as representing state? Bastard to overhaul...
      Sunday at 21:23 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • Anthony Adshead the royal family is mostly german, and one is even a greek
      Sunday at 21:32 · 
    • Anthony Adshead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha.
      House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      en.wikipedia.org
      The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (orig. Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha) is a Ge...See more
      Sunday at 21:34 ·  · 
    • Mick Constable Just for Tam, check out the age profile that I suggested earlier

      <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18316987>
      Crowds brave rain for Jubilee pageant
      www.bbc.co.uk
      Hundreds of people queued in the rain to get into London's Battersea Park to wat...See more
      Sunday at 21:40 ·  · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall No the family is not really German anymore. Although really given the amount of foreign blood in British people, it would be appropriate to have a monarchy who descend from mainland Europe. Saxons, Normans and Vikings anyone? Let's be honest, simply because George and later Pince Albert came from Germany, it hardly makes the Queen a German does it?
      Sunday at 21:44 via Mobile · 
    • Anthony Adshead why because they are now called Windsor, a name they changed in the first world war from Saxe Coburg for PR reasons because we were at war with the Germans.
      Sunday at 21:47 · 
    • Jock Campbell I agree wholeheartedly.
      Sunday at 22:24 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Right and your point is? I know English people with French surnames, because 150 years ago their family emigrated. Should I tell them being French, they have no right to vote in English elections? Perhaps I should question their right to hold a British passport?
      Sunday at 22:29 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • John O'Neill ‎Mick Constable I am very fortunate not to live in poverty because more than anything I was lucky as to where I was born and who I was born to. I dont take money from my "subjects" mostly far well off than myself to feed my lavish lifestyle.
      Sunday at 22:33 · 
    • John O'Neill ‎Joel Zumokuta Hall Firstly she has a palace to keep? No we have her palaces to keep, Who paid for Windsor after the fire? As for the legal pish in the Crown V abc, this is so simple its beyind u - The State v abc
      Sunday at 22:35 ·  · 1
    • John O'Neill Foreign as in Im Scottish, shes English simples - Im not talking about her Germanic background, her Scottish mother or the rest of her inbred birthline, I am talking of the here and now but ur more than welcome to go as far back in history as u want if u feel it will help u make a point :-)
      Sunday at 22:38 ·  · 2
    • Mick Constable John, you really need to read up on the finances, they are clearly laid out from all sources, including some rather bizarre calculations from the republicans.

      Even they dont match up to what we get back directly
      Sunday at 22:38 ·  · 1
    • John O'Neill I have not made any bizarre calculations only stated that a portion (no matter how small) goes to keep this unelected relic of the dark ages. We should not pay a penny towards their lifestyle, they should generate all there own money as a Disney style attraction that they clearly are :-)
      Sunday at 22:41 ·  · 2
    • Mick Constable John O’Neill, do you know who paid for Windsor restoration?
      Sunday at 22:42 · 
    • John O'Neill Some of it was paid by us, some by charging public entry to various buildings and I think some was charity donations
      Sunday at 22:45 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall So... You're saying now she's NOT a German? Confusing...
      As for the palace to keep, yes this comes from the Royal budget. The Queen doesn't just hoard the money. In fact the vast majority of her wealth is from private income, such as shares, etc.
      Sunday at 22:46 via Mobile · 
    • Mick Constable ‎70% was raised through visitor entry charges to Windsor and Buck Palace, 2 million directly from the Queen and some other donations, there was no forced contribution from the taxpayer .
      Sunday at 22:48 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Also, you may want to read a law book or two. Law is extremely complex and laws will have to be rewritten. It isn't simply a matter of the Crown vs Whoever. What would be the status of laws made by Royal assent for example, if the monarchy ceased to exist? This would be governed by a multitude of laws. Even if you changed the system immediately to pass laws, then you still have the problem that it would not affect laws made prior to this, as the system which implemented crown laws is now defunct.
      Honestly, stop getting pissy and have some sensible arguments.
      Sunday at 22:49 via Mobile · 
    • John O'Neill Im saying now shes not a German - Can u please for the record tell me where I ever said she WAS a German???? U really are confusing urself :-)
      Sunday at 22:50 ·  · 1
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Pretty generous Mick, given the Palace does not belong to the monarch anymore.
      Sunday at 22:50 via Mobile · 
    • John O'Neill Oooh the Wiki version - And were did the Queen get her £2 million
      Sunday at 22:51 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Well it's been said that they're all Germans, and we're ruled by a German family (read up), now it's claimed she isn't German after all and it doesn't matter where her ancestors came from.
      Sunday at 22:52 via Mobile · 
    • Tam Raymond I wonder where Queenie got her "private" income from? Was she a brickie?
      Sunday at 22:52 · 
    • John O'Neill The Law, Lets just use the same system most of the Republican world uses. U are trying to grasp straws now and over complicate simple things.
      Sunday at 22:53 · 
    • Tam Raymond No forced contribution, lol Mick, you sure you're not a politician? You should be mate!
      Sunday at 22:53 ·  · 1
    • Jock Campbell Robert the Bruce was French... should the Scots stick their nose up at him?!
      Sunday at 22:53 · 
    • Mick Constable Correct joeal, its part of the Crown Estates that contribute over £200 million directly into the treasury in return for a mere £40m of state funding.

      Thats the facts the republicans like to ignore
      Sunday at 22:53 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall It's mostly from investments and private estates. Thought this was common knowledge to be fair.
      Sunday at 22:53 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond no he wasn't lol
      Sunday at 22:53 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Interesting that unlike business leaders and some politicians, the Queen pays tax on interest and income...
      Sunday at 22:54 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • John O'Neill It may have been said they were all Germans but u said I was now saying she was not, insinuating I must have said she was and because of this u were getting confused. I said she is Foreign, I said she was English, I said Im Scottish, I can type it slowly if u like
      Sunday at 22:55 ·  · 2
    • Tam Raymond QE "2" is foreign???? Read all abart it...
      Sunday at 22:56 · 
    • Julie Nelson This is as an arguement totally ridiculous. We are all from mixed race ancestry of one origin or another. Pretty much the same as Americans, all immigrants!
      Sunday at 22:56 ·  · 2
    • Jock Campbell ‎^Agreed.
      Sunday at 22:56 · 
    • Jock Campbell But it's where our heart lies that matters Julie.
      Sunday at 22:57 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall No John, these are legitimate issues. You cannot simply change an entire system without incurring massive legal problems. We can copy systems, but this will be no small task to implement. After all even the smallest legal changes require immense amounts of work and administration as well as legal frameworks to implement. That's why even after assent laws may not become active for several years. I think it's you who is trying to oversimplify extremely complicated issues.
      Sunday at 22:57 via Mobile · 
    • Tam Raymond I could care less where the old lady is from lol...
      Sunday at 22:57 · 
    • Julie Nelson Our hearts should be seeing each other, all, as one race, one beginning. So we now have different cultures, embrace the differences i say!
      Sunday at 22:58 · 
    • Tam Raymond Thank, if you'll excuse me for saying the word, fuck, that USA don't have a monarchy. It was a PRESIDENT who save Britain when the nazis were at our borders. FDR or QE2? Easy one for me guys.
      Sunday at 22:59 · 
    • Jock Campbell But we're NOT all one race one beginning. People have differences Julie... i encourage people to embrace difference, enjoy difference, celebrate difference.
      Sunday at 22:59 · 
    • Jock Campbell That's blinkered Tam.
      Sunday at 22:59 · 
    • Tam Raymond It was a PRESIDENT who stood up to Russia - JFK or QE1? Easy one again
      Sunday at 23:00 · 
    • Tam Raymond Blinkered? Why? It's a perfectly valid example of why I don't believe in monarchies as opposed to democracy!
      Sunday at 23:01 ·  · 1
    • Luke Welshy Grattan Even the palace itself claims credit for charity work in an attempt to justify the enormous cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer. It is used as a smokescreen to deflect attention from the real issues. It works well because few people are willing to question another person's charity 'work'. It is, however, little more than a cynical PR exercise.
      Two obvious points can first be raised to rebut this monarchist defence:

      The royals can continue to do charity work in a republic. They do not need official 'royal' statue to raise money for charity.
      Their value to charities is their celebrity status, which they will retain even after the monarchy is gone.
      If you are unconvinced by these simple points it is worth considering some pertinent questions:

      What charity work do they actually do?
      How do other countries manage without the Windsors?
      What charities are they mainly involved with? (many are their own creations)
      The following points are also worth considering:

      This is a cynical use of charities to bolster their own reputations and stave off criticism about their lifestyles and extravagances
      There is a big difference between simply turning up at engagements, (what the royals do) and being an engaged patron (something many other celebrity patrons do)
      Sunday at 23:01 · 
    • Jock Campbell So let me get this straight... if we were a republic, we wouldn't have required assistance?!!!
      Sunday at 23:02 · 
    • Jock Campbell We have democracy Tam.
      Sunday at 23:02 · 
    • Jock Campbell This isn't the year 1500!
      Sunday at 23:03 · 
    • Mick Constable Luke, you really do misrepresent the Welsh dont you.
      Sunday at 23:03 · 
    • John O'Neill As regards to the law most acts are written in the male genre, does this mean females cant be guilty of breaking these acts? - Keep it simple. This would be a perfect reason to overhaul our legal system and rid it of many of these archaic entities with in it :-)
      Sunday at 23:04 ·  · 1
    • Luke Welshy Grattan well you certianly represent deluded loyalists very well mick
      Sunday at 23:05 · 
    • Tam Raymond Naw Jock, but THEY have a President, and HE stood tall and helped us in our Hour of need. He went out on a limb to help us. But I assure you, I'd have been less certain that the Brit monarchy would have!

      And if the Americans had a monarchy, who knows? I'm demonstrating how grateful we should be to the one office monarchists despise, i.e. a President. God bless him. :-)
      Sunday at 23:07 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Tam, I think you should check your facts there, as I'm afraid you're mistaken...
      Sunday at 23:09 via Mobile · 
    • Julie Nelson Oh I forgot the Americans won the war and saved us all, yea yea yea!!!!!!! Amazing how Hollywood managed to rewrite history!
      Sunday at 23:09 · 
    • Tam Raymond Presidents can be wonderful leaders, and Britain shouldn't forget the debt we owe to the US President Roosevelt. That's my point. He did more for ALL of Britain in 4 years than monarchs have done throughout history.
      Sunday at 23:10 ·  · 1
    • Jock Campbell Haud on Tam... it's not the monarch's job to do anything but be there for the people... and they were!!!
      Sunday at 23:11 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Actually no.
      Sunday at 23:11 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • Jock Campbell So can PM's Tam.
      Sunday at 23:11 · 
    • Jock Campbell I think you misunderstand the function of the monarch tam.
      Sunday at 23:12 · 
    • Tam Raymond They left Jock.
      Sunday at 23:12 · 
    • Tam Raymond Well, that's for sure Jock!
      Sunday at 23:12 · 
    • Jock Campbell They were protected Tam... and I distinctly recall the Queen mither walking among the Blitzed streets of London.
      Sunday at 23:13 · 
    • Tam Raymond Their function is ceremonial, and defending ONLY the Church of England and her 29 Bishops in the House of Lords, yeah?
      Sunday at 23:13 · 
    • Tam Raymond You're a lot older than you look mate! :-)
      Sunday at 23:14 ·  · 1
    • Jock Campbell No, not exactly. Their function is to preserve and represent the cultural heritage of the nation.
      Sunday at 23:14 · 
    • Jock Campbell I mean I recall seeing film footage.
      Sunday at 23:14 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond Anti-Catholic
      Sunday at 23:14 ·  · 1
    • John O'Neill So long as its not Catholic?
      Sunday at 23:14 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond Joked there lol
      Sunday at 23:15 · 
    • Jock Campbell That I do disagree with Tam, the antiCatholic thing is unforgivable.
      Sunday at 23:15 · 
    • Tam Raymond I cannot accept religion ruling me in any form.
      Sunday at 23:15 ·  · 1
    • Jock Campbell But that still doesn't negate the value of monarchy
      Sunday at 23:15 · 
    • Jock Campbell Ok... THIS monarchy I can lose ;)
      Sunday at 23:16 · 
    • Jock Campbell You getting my drift?
      Sunday at 23:16 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond Well, there's the rub, Jock. To me it, and other things, do negate them.
      Sunday at 23:16 · 
    • Tam Raymond I do, but I still disagree lol...
      Sunday at 23:16 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond This isn't just you and i
      Sunday at 23:17 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall 
      The USA was a nautral power in WWII, refusing military aid to Britain. The Battle of Britain ended in October 1940, with a decisive win, and plans for the invasion of Britain were postponed indefinitely due to war in North Africa and Asia. In Spring of 1941, Operation Barbarossa saw the German invasion of Russia, stretching resources away from the Western European Front. The US joined the war in December 1941 against Japan, and Hitler later declared war on the US. America did not do a great deal to protect Britain, and there was great resentment against us. What they did do is lend us money, which was not written off like for other countries, which we finally paid off in 2006.
      Sunday at 23:20 via Mobile ·  · 3
    • William Brodie ‎.
      Sunday at 23:22 via Mobile · 
    • Jock Campbell I think we should chat more about this Tam... when it's a wee bit less crowded!
      Sunday at 23:24 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond Joel, Roosevelt invented and used "lend-lease" to supply warships, planes, ammunition, guns, fuckin tanks...the lot to a bankrupt UK mate. HE did that. He also managed to escort these vital supplies to Greenland. You're so wrong it's unfair to yourslef.
      Sunday at 23:24 ·  · 1
    • Jock Campbell Sure Tam... but it was hardly a charitable donation!
      Sunday at 23:25 · 
    • Tam Raymond Well, come on, Jock, that's not really fair. He was out on a limb. he was very, very ill and getting worse. Let's be honest here: Roosevelt was as big a hero for Brits as Churchill was.
      Sunday at 23:28 · 
    • Jock Campbell 
      Well, there's another way of seeing it Tam... Roosevelt was swayed by Churchill's warning about the Russians... he then acted as he saw the dangers..... that if the Nazis had taken Russia... they'd have ALL been up the shitter. Churchill's wisdom was spot on... Roosevelt only acted in his best interests. So as much as appreciate the sacrifice of those men, I'm not getting all starry eyed for the USA, which has only ever served itself.
      Sunday at 23:31 · 
    • Jock Campbell I'm tired mate, I'll catch up again soon.
      Sunday at 23:31 · 
    • Tam Raymond Not HIM Jock, he was an - I ask you to excuse the term - Anglophile, and his heart was always in helping the UK out. The rationale you say above was how he persuaded congress, he himself was always intent on finding a way, i.e.e lend-lease and materiel
      Sunday at 23:33 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall Perhaps you can point out which fact I got wrong...
      Sunday at 23:33 via Mobile · 
    • Jock Campbell Yeah but as I said Tam, it wasn't a charity deal... it was business. and let's be honest, you don't go to war with an ill-equipped ally!!
      Sunday at 23:34 · 
    • Tam Raymond See above Joel, i already did mate
      Sunday at 23:35 ·  · 1
    • Jock Campbell Anyway... goodnight guys... I'll pop in soon.
      Sunday at 23:35 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond Joel, don't forget that I'm contrasting the monarchy over here, with the Presidency over there. I'm not saying America was with us from the start; that's my whole point: they were far from it.

      My point is that the US President WAS a great leader who did not only his own country proud, but helped us, and, certainly saved us from German occupation.
      Sunday at 23:37 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall No you mentioned something I left out. I didn't actually make a mistake there ;-)
      Sunday at 23:39 via Mobile ·  · 1
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall What you have to remember is it was because he was a president that he decided this. It was because he was FDR. There were cabinet members who actually initially wanted war with the British Empire over trade. I'm not saying the bloke was an arsehole to us, but he had a major problem - selling the idea of aid to us to an American public who wanted nothing to do with European war.
      Sunday at 23:42 via Mobile · 
    • Tam Raymond I TOTALLY agree! See how strong, sensible, statesmanlike and valuable a Presdient can be? I'm glad you agree! :-)
      Sunday at 23:45 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall But they can also be useless in office. Nixon, Eisenhower, and so on. It's not the office which makes the man. How about Bush and Obama?
      Sunday at 23:48 via Mobile · 
    • Tam Raymond Obama? He's doing a superb job! America has growth in their economy Joel, we bloody don't! As you, or someone said earlier, you get good and bad monarchs...and don't forget the VITAL thing: Nixon was impeached...try that with any of our so-called rulers mate.
      Sunday at 23:50 · 
    • Joel Zumokuta Hall 
      Bush won a second term Tam. Obama doesn't seem to be the great leader the US thought if my American chums' posts and some of their press is anything to go by, introducing extremely controversial acts. Eisenhower was apparently a complete joke in D.C. only really supported by veterens who soon lost favour. Nixon might have been impeached, but he was still president and able to screw things up first. Impeachment doesn't undo things.
      Sunday at 23:56 via Mobile · 
    • Tam Raymond Nope, that can't happen. It can gt rid though lol...
      Monday at 00:25 · 
    • Jock Campbell A President can also be a weak, stupid, naive, childish, undignified fool.
      Monday at 10:45 · 
    • Jock Campbell Obama's the right man in the wrong time. He's trying to introduce radical changes in a time of recession!
      Monday at 10:46 · 
    • Jock Campbell You see, you guys are confusing a political entity with a cultural entity.

      A president is political, he represents ONLY those who support and voted for him, he represents the policies his government pursue. The monarch does not. She is s state figurehead, the leader of the people, representing the core values that her nations holds.
      Monday at 10:49 ·  · 2
    • Marjory Smith Monarchy is symbolic of inequality and oppression, a caste and class system and a history of massacre and murder. It's fundamentally and absolutely wrong and the antithesis of democracy.
      Monday at 15:03 ·  · 2
    • Jock Campbell So you're saying King Robert the Brus oppressed the people of Scotland?!!?
      Monday at 15:05 · 
    • Jock Campbell And that a parliamentary system of democracy doesn't exist in the UK at present?
      Monday at 15:06 · 
    • Mick Constable ‎"Monarchy is symbolic of inequality and oppression", not for many millions that dont see it that way it isnt.
      “
      and a history of massacre and murder” what the hell has that got to do with anything nowadays.

      "absolutely wrong and the antithesis of democracy.”, rubbish
      Monday at 15:07 ·  · 1
    • Marjory Smith 
      The Glencose massacre order was signed by William of Orange, twice, for example. Henry VIII is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of 70,000 people. We only vote for the Commons not the Lords and not the head of state, the powers given to the PM are royal powers - too much power and not proprtionate to the electoral mandate gained, or not gained, or any deals done with other parties. Inherited power is clearly the opposite of power coming up from the people - power in this country comes down from the Crown and the morass mess unwritten constitution is not fit for purpose as it consists of a dodgy deal done centuries ago and stupid pointless precedents and traditions.
      Monday at 15:10 ·  · 1
    • Marjory Smith Simply stating 'rubbish' is not an argument of any kind.
      Monday at 15:10 ·  · 1
    • Marjory Smith Blind loyalty to monarchy is by some people is not a reason for it to be imposed on the rest of us as heads of state in perpetuity for just one bloodline of just one family as the remnants of Hanoverian monarchy.
      Monday at 15:12 ·  · 1
    • Mick Constable Similary, objections to Royalty are no reason for it to be imposed on the rest of us who form the large majority, by a small number of those, in context, who dont agree.

      I’m prepared to live with your beliefs as I have no choice, therefore you have to do similar.
      Monday at 15:18 · 
    • Marjory Smith If you're so sure of its popularity and majority there should be no problem for you us getting a vote on it then should there?
      Monday at 15:27 via Mobile ·  · 2
    • Mick Constable By all means try, it will be intersting as long as your not upset by failure
      Monday at 15:29 · 
    • Tina Turpie I think I'll keep my opinions to myself. But to say the queen works 24hrs a day is just rubbish.
      Monday at 15:30 ·  · 1
    • Mick Constable Clearly
      Monday at 15:30 · 
    • Jock Campbell Marjory, the Glencoe massacre came about because a ambitious bastard who had no respect for the highlanders allowed misinformation to be presented to the monarch... a monarch who was only too well aware of the threat to his reign.

      You've ignored a good point put to you, that of Robert Brus.... I'd like an answer to that please, Marjory.

      Tina, she may not work 24hrs a day... but she works every waking moment as her every action is monitored, prescribed and manipulated. I sure as hell wouldn't want that job... silver spoons or no!
      Monday at 15:48 · 
    • Jock Campbell Equally Marjory, blind loyalty in politicians has been proven, FAR more often that loyalty to monarchies, to be highly destructive to the best interests of equality and prosperity of the people.
      Monday at 15:50 ·  · 1
    • Marjory Smith It's not about picking one monarch out of the hat and saying because he wasn't so bad monarchy is ok. I'd be more concerned that Charles Windsor selected his great x whatever Uncle Henry viii to reference in a speech as someone he may have inherited an interest in architecture from - you don't comment on him?
      Monday at 15:54 via Mobile · 
    • Jock Campbell And yet you are keen to do so Marjory!!! I'm sorry, but if you're going to have a debate, do so without dredging up histrionics... or answer the histrionics!

      Monarchs the world over have done "good" and "bad" depending on your point of view. But this doesn't negate the ideology behind modern monarchy. Indeed, if it wasn't for Victoria's reign, I highly doubt we'd be living the lives we currently do!

      So let's stick to the here and now and leave the fickle business of history to the books.
      Monday at 16:38 · 
    • Jock Campbell And yet again... i raise points that you refuse to answer... while I answer your points fully. Come on Marjory, play the game!
      Monday at 16:39 · 
    • Morgan Ravensdaughter 
      ‎@Joel, Just as an aside Eisenhower wasn't a joke ,he did a lot, but without being a star, he worked quietly but did end the Korean War,built our national highway system, started the space program, held his own during the Cold War, recognized the "domino effect" tactics of the Russians and worked in the far east to neutralize that threat and kept us from going to war at the same time......He did a lot, but never blew his own horn....unfair to call him a joke.......
      Monday at 16:46 ·  · 1
    • Elsa Kerr 
      Back when monarchs had a job rather than just watching naked Maoris dance, shaking hands and waving a lot, whether they were good or bad was obvious! Now we are debating about a woman who hasn't given an interview in sixty years! How the he'll do we know she is not a raving despot kept in control by her aides? We don't actually know anything about her so people can project on snippets of heresy! Like mister Cameron this week saying her advice was invaluable because of her wisdom and common sense! Get a grip man!
      Monday at 16:56 via Mobile · 
    • Mick Constable I think the raving despots tend to congregate on here and similar pages it would seem.

      The queen however, being the true professional she is, tends to keep her own council and doesnt go whittering and whining like some of her subjects who often act like spoilt children.
      Monday at 17:10 ·  · 2
    • Jock Campbell HM doesn't NEED to give "interviews" she's not on a popularity show!
      Monday at 19:04 ·  · 1
    • Tam Raymond The vast majority in the UK want the Queen, and even Charlie to rule us as a monarchy.

      Just because I don't like that doesn't mean I can deny it. I don lament the poverty of self-respect and ambition which causes such sentiment, and I've always, and will always oppose it, but that doesn't change the facts, however distasteful I personally find them.
      Monday at 19:17 · 
    • Tam Raymond ‎*do...i wish i had the patience to proof-read what i'm posting
      Monday at 19:18 · 
    • Jock Campbell I think what has been demonstrated among these debates is a profound misunderstanding of what exactly the monarchy is and what it is there for.

      We can't blame the monarchy for the lack of good governance we've endured in this country... only we the voters and those with an interest in manipulating information via the media can be blamed for the ills we suffer... ills we can start to resolve post independence... without any need for radical constitutional change.

      That said Tam, I'm open to republicanism if that's REALLY what the people want. However, I will be asking serious questions about our constitution in such a republic... as to my mind, gaps potentially appear in the framework.
      Monday at 19:24 · 
    • Marjory Smith You're not answering my points at all Jock and Charles Windsor is in the here and now.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)