Forum menu
Nice to fantasize on, but this is the establishment, and it isn't ever ever going o change.
Why is it voluntary for him?
Because he's the king.
It's explained in the link I posted above. You might not agree with it - I certainly don't - but here we are.
Which law?
QE2 vetted about thousand, gave herself immunity ot over a ahundred and had many modified before giivng royal ascent. Google it, Cougar.
You've got your head in the sand - the facts are there and just need the most obvious key words in Google to find.
I used to prosecute industrials, farmers and institutions for polluting water, we didn't go for the employee who opened the valve or whatever we went for the top, the CEO, the landowner the head of the organisation because they are the ones ultimately responsible not the employee (gamekeeper).
cougar - I don't get why you're argueing so hard about stuff that is well known and public knowledge
Because they're woolly concepts. It's probably well known and public knowledge that brown people are coming over here and stealing our jobs.
I've already shown you here that your "facts" aren't, so... /shrug
And in any case, I'm not saying you're wrong. It may well be true. All I'm saying is demonstrate it rather than claim it.
You’ve got your head in the sand – the facts are there and just need the most obvious key words in Google to find.
I cannot possibly have a wrong opinion when I don't have an opinion.
"Google it" - no, you google it and then link back to what your asserting. We're not mind readers, I can't possibly google what you're thinking.
This entire thread is:
1) "We should abolish the monarchy because I don't like them"
2) claims, allegations and conjecture at tabloid levels
3) a total lack of facts or evidence to back up 2)
4) personal attacks and insults rather than counter-arguments when I point out 2) and 3)
5) exactly like every other 'royal' based thread
6) exactly what I predicted on the first page.
Its not just the king cougar, its the entire ruling elite.
Having a king only reinforces that working class are 2nd class citizens.
Just watching a vid with Jacob Rees Mogg in it. He has a personal fortune of £100m. (Charles is worth some £1.5b) How can people who are completely removed from the every day lives of the citizens of the UK represent them.
Simple answer is they dont. They represent themselves and those they deem their peers, ie other immensely wealthy people.
King Charles reinforces this division of working and ruling classes. Yet other countries who have removed their previous rulers-kings/queens and put their faith wholly in the people, live, in comparison to the UK, a utopia. With good health service, high wages and a high standard of living.
King Charles doesn't care about you or whether you live or die in poverty or pain, he cares only for himself.
I don't know who is more pathetic, us or them.
Whilst I don't disagree, if you're holding up a candle to differentiate between Charles and Jacob, I'd suggest that your ire is misdirected on a number of levels.
Indeed, cross out Charles and write Jacob on your post there, does it scan better or worse?
King Charles doesn’t care about you or whether you live or die in poverty or pain, he cares only for himself.
Is that different from most of the rest us us?
Whether we should have a monarchy (classed as non democratic) should be decided democratically, via a vote.
If the majority of people want a monarchy then that's what the country should have surely?
Imagine the result would be in favour of keeping monarchy but probably fairly close where almost as many people are pissed off as happy but that is democracy. After that you just need to decide if you wan to live in a country that wants a monarchy or if it really isn't that important to you after all.
I hate the monarchy and all it stands for but I would not be going anywhere.
And in any case, I’m not saying you’re wrong. It may well be true. All I’m saying is demonstrate it rather than claim it.
Two Guardian articles you linked to support what I have said.
Is that different from most of the rest us us?
Yes.
5) exactly like every other ‘royal’ based thread
Exactly like every other thread. The two sides can generally be put into "obscure" and "enlightened" and the various protagonists don't need many Venn circles to group them. See:
Remain versus Leave
Republican versus royalist
"art house" "pretentious" versus proud to be a pleb
EV versus diesel (possibly remapped with EGR removed to smoke cyclists)
Insulation and heat pump versus gas/oil central heating
Train versus plane
Mediterranean diet /sensible eating versus latest fad diet
Woke versus misogyny and racism (usually thinly veiled to avoid ban)
Courteous driving within the law versus making progress
Renewable versus fossil and nuclear
Women are people versus objects and my partner/ex is evil and trying to fleece me
Immigrants are human beings that contribute to society versus send 'em back
Dogs
Positive contribution to society versus nihilism
It's STW, it goes round and round in circles. Some people have changed a little over the years, some for the better, some getting more entrenched and bitter. It's a long running soap, some have been written out of the script and some gone on to better things but most continue playing their stereotypical roles.
It still makes more interesting reading than anything else on the Anglo-Saxon Internet, find me something better and I'll piss off. 😉
Yep, if the politicians are saying ‘there’s no money left’ (not that I believe them) at the same time as letting off one of the richest families in the land from inheritance tax then yes, we’re all worse off.
So the politicians are letting off the royal family its the royal family's fault? Its clear tightening their tax affairs would be popular, so why wouldn't the politicians take action? Maybe to keep this particular target in the culture war going and distract from the politicians failures?
I'm very much with Cougar. They cost me pennies, personally, it doesn’t affect me personally. Other opinions are available and valid. The legal and tax evasion they are being accused of are no worse than many businesses or high profile individuals.
Theres a lot of allegations being made, but little evidence or figures to back them up, which is what Cougar and I have pointed out. Its fine to just object to the monarchy on principle, but just say that.
Every time I see this thread I think of Elvis.
You don't think the unethical land practises on their estates including routine killing of raptors has no effect on us? It does on me
Some evidence to back up my claims:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent
I find the framing if this quite bizarre. So you're telling me the king had a little known power to.... wield power, to rule? .... Wow that's an eye opener 🤣
Yet other countries who have removed their previous rulers-kings/queens and put their faith wholly in the people, live, in comparison to the UK, a utopia. With good health service, high wages and a high standard of living.
For example, the Scandinavian countries us Scots aspire to?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_royal_family
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_royal_family
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_royal_family
You don’t think the unethical land practises on their estates including routine killing of raptors has no effect on us? It does on me
While I condemn such actions, it actually doesn’t directly affect me, no. I don't live nearby, I don’t visit, the raptor population near me is going nicely thank you.
Getting rid of the monarchy probably wouldn’t end that practice, sadly.
It is therefore quite far down on tne list of things that piss me off and impact my physical and mental health.
<p>Ok, I was wrong about HoL having the veto power over HoC. They should still be elected, IMO.</p><p>I am quite happy to admit opposing the monarchy on purely ideological grounds. I really believe we could do better with a republic and this is not based on facts.</p><p>The point is, we don’t know what a republic would be like. What I do want is democratic representation, devolved power and a change from hierarchy to organisation.</p>
While I condemn such actions
...
Getting rid of the monarchy probably wouldn’t end that practice
It could potentially make it worse.
"Rogue gamekeepers are shooting protected species, I know, let's get rid of the management!" In this scenario, getting rid of the monarchy might be a positive step, if you're going to replace it with something better. What might that look like then? Pledging allegiance to your new President Chuck? What if the only thing preventing those land managers from mullering everything living is actually 'interference' from the Crown? It's not like we don't have any other global examples of mankind fishing/hunting to extinction. Dodoburger and fries, sir?
Same shit, different day, us proles are always going to be lorded over. All that changes is whether we call them Lords or not. Even in more enlightened which have a direct democracy they don't, not really, because those in charge still have a casting vote. Maybe DazH was right all along and we should just burn the lot and go feudal.
onehundredthidiot
Full MemberIt’s due on 29 Acacia Ave (a privately owned house) but not Balmoral (a privately owned estate). Seems fair difference is HM doesn’t have to pay tax but, for the sake of appearances pays some.
Onehundredthidiot is Bananaman.
Is this the thread where everyone chooses odd hills on which to die?
One or two certainly do seem to be overdoing it a tad on this one.
🤷♂️
Yet other countries who have removed their previous rulers-kings/queens and put their faith wholly in the people, live, in comparison to the UK, a utopia. With good health service, high wages and a high standard of living.
...and there are other countries who have removed, disestablished or executed royal families that live, in comparison to the UK, a dystopia: Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia, Libya. I am a republican, but it's important not to exaggerate how bad things are in the UK, or how much a republic alone would improve things. That's just Brexit/Scot Nat thinking
Its not just the king cougar
I don't think he's proclaimed himself King Cougar yet. But he certainly reckons he's the smartest person in the room.
I don't think he does, it think it's more a case that he's looking for objective answers where there are some or else admit it's an emotional argument. Same as me and more cash.
The position has been laid out several times, read what we're saying, none of us are saying one thing and meaning another. My mum does this all the time and gives 4 dimensional answers to questions I never asked.
He has been given objective answers with the evidence. Its not an emotional argument for me. Its a political and environmental one
I am a republican, but it’s important not to exaggerate how bad things are in the UK, or how much a republic alone would improve things. That’s just Brexit/Scot Nat thinking
I'm a "Scot Nat" and also a republican. I'm also well aware that there are many nationalists who would like to keep the monarchy. I speak to them on the doors regularly and respect their wishes. Nowt like a sweeping "Scot Nat" statement.
If there needs to be a criminal investigation then let’s push for that,
thats the point - the police cannot investigate properly on royal estates ( not just Sandringham) because they have to ask permission first meaning any evidence can be covered up - and if you think the raptor killings are not done with the consent of the head of the royal family .......
That’s just Brexit/Scot Nat thinking
FFS - not this old canard again
Brexit and scots nationalism are totally different with totally different motivation, effects and benefits. Ite really pretty insulting to say they are the same
Brexit is xenophobic inward and backward looking - Scots nationalism pro european, outward and forward looking
he certainly reckons he’s the smartest person in the room.
Doesn't everyone? Who rocks up to a discussion with an opening gambit of "I'm a bit thick, me, but..."?
he’s looking for objective answers where there are some or else admit it’s an emotional argument.
Bingo.
He has been given objective answers with the evidence.
Wrongo.
No-one has evidenced anything, which is my entire point.
You've handwaved editorial articles that have no substance beyond allegation, other posters have yelled variations on "just google it!!" Well, Google what? No-one seems to know.
It's not my place to disprove your claims, it's your place to back up your claims otherwise they can simply be dismissed with "no it isn't". Which is what I'm going to do for the remainder of this thread.
I have backed up my claims. Its all public knowledge now. Plenty of evidence has been given
I just do not get why you are arguing this? Its bonkers.
You even defend the right of the royals to interfere in the democratic process
Facts
!) We know - numerous refernces above that the queen and Prince charles as he was then interfere in the democratic process. You even said you thought this a good thing so yo accept it happens
2) we know raptors are regularly killed on the royal estates and the police cannot investigate properly
Both these are facts, evidenced on this thread
he certainly reckons he’s the smartest person in the room.
Doesn’t everyone? Who rocks up to a discussion with an opening gambit of “I’m a bit thick, me, but…”?
I am fully aware that there are plenty of people smarter than me but it doesn't necessarily make them right imo.
I know that it is popular on here but I don't work on the assumption that anyone with a different opinion to mine must be thick.
Obviously anyone who argues a point generally believes that they right. I believe that the term for not doing so is called trolling.
So in answer to your question, no.
Deep breath,
I have backed up my claims.
No you haven't.
Its all public knowledge now.
No it isn't.
Plenty of evidence has been given
No it hasn't.
I just do not get why you are arguing this? Its bonkers.
I'm not arguing.
You even defend the right of the royals to interfere in the democratic process
No I didn't. I posited that they are part of our so-called democratic process.
Facts
Uh-huh.
!) We know – numerous refernces above that the queen and Prince charles as he was then interfere in the democratic process.
"We"? You claim you know.
You even said you thought this a good thing so yo accept it happens
I think free cake would be a good thing. Oddly, I don't have cake. That's a really weird leap of logic.
2) we know raptors are regularly killed on the royal estates and the police cannot investigate properly
I already answered this. And most of your other arguments, which you've ignored.
I had a bit of a surprise yesterday. At a local festival, maybe 150-200 at the comedy stage when the compere decided to try out a royal joke.
Asked who liked the royals, got less than half a dozen responses.
Asked who didn’t like the royals, again, less than half a dozen responses.
Asked who couldn't give a **** about the royals, the rest of us cheered.
Outside the Singletrack bubble, it's really not a priority for a surprising number of people.
I just find it weird that we accord rights and priveleges that are way in excess of the average person's means to a bunch of people according to whose birth canal they came out of. In the 21st Century FFS. Elect of god? Really? Is that still the best claim that can be made?
And, if a sportsperson say, doesn’t sing a daft song with gusto they are pilloried. I mean, begging a mythical being to uphold unearned privilege and often being harragued into doing so? It's all a bit subservient and demeaning, TBH.
The fact that being republican also winds up Brexity gammons is an added bonus.
Brexit is xenophobic inward and backward looking – Scots nationalism pro european, outward and forward looking
Scottish nationalism long predates Brexit, apart from a historical tendency to hope that European support will help the Scots get rid of English rule, which so far has ended in disappointment.
Scottish nationalism long predates Brexit
It doesn't long predate the moronic, inward-looking, xenophobic, backward-looking English nationalism that caused Brexit, though.
Wales? Inexplicable that they would vote Leave - too many magic mushrooms at supposedly druidic ceremonies...?
I saw a thread the other day about STW setting up a womens forum.
Maybe we could also have a forum for those that like to bicker incessantly?
I'd read some where the King could give every single person in the uk £1m and still be fantastically wealthly. Probably bollox, but I could imagine dividing out the total wealth concentrated on a few would really help out with the cost of living .....
Maybe we could also have a forum for those that like to bicker incessantly?
Already taken care of. It is called 'The Forum'.
I’d read some where the King could give every single person in the uk £1m and still be fantastically wealthly. Probably bollox, but I could imagine dividing out the total wealth concentrated on a few would really help out with the cost of living …..
That's the basic issue for me right there. The king only has access to this wealth because he came out of a certain birth canal. It is wrong, outdated - a total anachronism. Invoking god? Well, might as well double-down for the gullible, I guess.
But that is not really the thrust of the main bickering on here. The main thrust is that one poster has gone full-on "prove it, show me the evidence, in my hand, down the pub this evening - I want fully audited accounts and an independent ombudsman there too - with an up to date CV so I can check they had no royal affiliations in the past". Whilst others have indulged in a bit of rumour-mongering amongst a few generally accepted examples - but, and this is another key point - the monarchy is intensely secretive about it affairs in general. Sure, there are some titbits put into the public domain, but much is not - we can either accept at face value that everything 'bad' we know is literally all there is to know or we can extrapolate from those examples to postulate what goes on.
If you accept at face value what the rich and powerful say, you need to be very happy with your decision, because you will likely end up poorer than you need to be - but I guess ignorance is sometimes bliss.
What's up @Cougar ? Way back when you used to help us computer dunces with fixing our computers (thanks), then you became a moderator and a very good one at that (thanks), then you gave that up (wisely) and became a regular member. Recently your contributions make depressing reading.
Please put your moderator hat back on for half an hour and read back through your own contribtions to this thread. Well?
What’s up @Cougar ?
I'm not very well right now.
Well?
Well what?
The forum: wild unsubstantiated claims which on a different thread would be routinely torn apart
Me: Are you sure? Can you back that up?
The forum: we've told you once, personal insults
🤷♂️
We're all quick to challenge opinions that we don't agree with. As soon as they're opinions that we do agree with, the logic wheels fall off.
Brexit and scots nationalism are totally different with totally different motivation, effects and benefits. Ite really pretty insulting to say they are the same
Again, with the 4D answers* to things nobody said.
It's not the outcomes that are the same, it's the arguments. Jam tomorrow, in whichever flavour fits the argument. The book of dreams was exactly that, one party's vision of a future, there were no assurances in fact for the vast majority of it and was ultimately why the whole venture failed.
This has also been explained many times.
*this is seemingly a thing that divides people into two groups, those who say exactly what they mean and those who say what they expect other people to understand. Where both meet there is confusion and ultimately frustration since one takes things at face value whilst the other tries to derive further meaning where there may not be any.