NOpe – I’m in the right one. Scotland which has the capacity to become and independent european democracy.

For me it’s the very basic concept of being in a modern world with some, quite frankly insane, weird arse Middle Ages Disney thing cobbled on. It’s some out of touch, old fashioned bullshit with absolutely no place in a civilised society. It’s the antithesis of progressive and just needs to go away.

Didn’t the queen ask for equal opps employment legislation not to be applied to the monarchy?

I don’t know. Did she?

Probably the downsides of a republic are a lack of focus, ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme.

Does it? I see no evidence to suggest the rf provide anything of the sort. If anything they promote an us and them view where the serfs fund thier lavish lifestyle built on the proceeds of historic theft of land and resources

Subject? Having to pay for an unelected sovereign.

How much?

Genuine question, how much have you paid?

What’s the unelected civil service cost you? Or the unelected house of lords?

Prince George is 10 today. [etc etc]

And? So what. I don’t even know who Prince George is, that’s how influential he is on my daily life.

Someone is more privileged than you or I, well holy ****, quick, ring the media. Meanwhile the homeless bloke in London I spoke with last week (Kevin, he gave me a donut, lovely bloke) is probably thinking of you “look at that entitled prick over there with his ‘house,’ I’d be getting more handouts if it wasn’t for him.”

The only person worthy of knee bending is George Floyd.

Show me anyone who is ‘knee bending’ outside of recieving honours that they’re allowed to refuse. (And funerals and suchlike)

Yet more nonsense emotive hyperbole. Funny isn’t it, how not that long ago we were arguing about klans like Leave.EU making up shit and the great unwashed sucking it down wholesale, people like Daz leaping out complaining that we were allegedly calling them all idiots. Yet as soon as stories align with our beliefs, logic and fact-checking goes out of the window for the intellectuals just as quickly.

Interfering with the law making process.

The fact that the rf are specifically exempt from inheritance tax shows interference in the law making process unless you believe Parliament thought it was a good idea all on its own

So we have our unelected head of state interfering with democratically created law.  We have them covering for criminals on the estates.  You think this is acceptable?

TJ,

even the fact she had the right to preaprove laws and to have changed ones she didn’t like was kept secret and this is not a function of a normal ceremonial head of state.

Did the revelation of that “secret” come as a surprise to you? It surpised me that she didn’t.

YOU even accept she had laws altered for personal gain.

I haven’t accepted any such thing, I have no way of knowing. I’m merely taking the Guardian report at face value in lieu of any further information which I would cheerfully welcome.

So we have examples of the queen interfering in law, hindering criminal investigations and you think this is acceptable?

I think she’s dead. The rest of that sentence is emotive allegation.

If you want to know whether I think it’s acceptable that she “interfered in law” then you’re going to have to explain which laws you mean and what she’s changed to our detriment; or what “hindering” you’re referring to. That would help me form an opinion as to whether our head of state was acting in an “acceptable” state-headiness kind of way or not.

Politicians do all of that all of the time, demonstrably and (hopefully) well-reported, yet this seems acceptable to everyone? Having checks and balances in there to stop them going power-mad seems somewhat sensible to me, the sovereign doesn’t interfere enough to my mind. Every company needs a CEO.

The fact that the rf are specifically exempt from inheritance tax shows interference in the law making process unless you believe Parliament thought it was a good idea all on its own

There’s that “belief” again. I believe in Spider-Man. Got any facts?

And in any case. Again. So what? Are you worse off?

Hindering – and covering for criminals – the guardian article you linked showed it.  Investigations into criminal conduct on royal estates are regularly blocked and the crimes covered up.

Interference with the law – again in the other article you linked.  These things are proven

So we have our unelected head of state interfering with democratically created law.

Which law?

We have them covering for criminals on the estates.

When? Who? Where?

You think this is acceptable?

What is “this”?

I think the monarchy is an established part of the English legal process. Whether I think it’s acceptable or not is neither here nor there and it’s not clear to me whether you’re arguing about their actual actions or the very concept of them existing. I rather suspect the latter.

Read that Grauniad article again. I refrained from commenting because I didn’t want to lead discussions, but there’s a lot of probably likely but unproven misdemeanours going on there along with a few prosecutions. It sounds also like there’s a need for a proper investigation into the management of… Sandringham, was it? But some nobhead gamekeeper shot an endangered bird so let’s stick the queen’s head on a pole is something of a leap, it needs looking into and if the Queen (etc) is culpable then throw the book at them.

Stop.
Making.
Shit.
Up.

It is unhelpful, it’s a dead cat. If there needs to be a criminal investigation then let’s push for that, I’ll be with you 100%. Remember the four Fs, First Find the Blummin’ Facts.

My word, such self-righteous obsequiousness. 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.

the guardian article you linked showed it.

The Guardian article alleged it.

These things are proven

From that article,

linked
alleged
mysterious
investigated
appears
suspicious
impossible to investigate
facing questions
no further action
assertions based on little or no substantive evidence
no evidence of a crime
questioned
no arrests or charges

etc etc, it goes on. Yet I’m not seeing “proven” anywhere other than a prosecution for a gamekeeper harming an owl.

And sure, of course, it all sounds dodgy as hell. But “sounds dodgy as hell” does not secure convictions, that is not how our legal system works. One could, likely fairly legitimately, suggest that all this a failing of policing or investigative powers. But, well, that’s a failing of policing or investigative powers. If there is an unresolved case still to be investigated then let’s empower them to go back and investigate it rather than filling in the blanks with words like “proven” when it’s far from anything of the sort.

My word, such self-righteous obsequiousness.

My word, more unnecessary ad hom.

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

I’d no idea about this, but it was easily googlable. Literally the first hit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

In exchange for this public support, The King surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending.
…
the King voluntarily pays income and capital gains tax, alongside inheritance tax to the extent described in paragraphs 1.9 and 1.10 in the Memorandum.

The Memorandum is here for further reading)

yes, we’re all worse off.

By how much?

If I’m out of pocket by thousands a year then we have a clear problem. If it’s tuppence a decade then we’re into ‘small boats’ waters again.

But you don’t know, do you.

So if my parents were wealthy enough I’d pay inheritance tax but HM doesn’t.

It’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.

Oh and I don’t voluntarily pay the taxes.

Nicely set up in paragraph 1.18 so no one will ever know if they actually will pay what they say.

the King voluntarily pays income and capital gains tax,

Why is it voluntary for him? Surely he should be subject to the same taxation legislation as the rest of us.

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).

Every company needs a CEO.

The UK has a CEO, and they regularly get binned for underperformance.

Why is it voluntary for him? Surely he should be subject to the same taxation legislation as the rest of us.

Hmm TBH I think the give away is in what HMRC stands for ‘His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ his names literally on the door.

Anyway if you think the tax things bad your heads gonna explode when you hear about sovereign immunity 🙂

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.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html

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 Member

It’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.