# The Monarchy



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

Is it time to think about winding down the royal family? Let them find their own way in life and pay for it too. 
Is being represented accros the world by  ultra privileged and unelected persons what we want. Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Neilds (Sep 27, 2019)

No. End of thread.


----------



## BrianM (Sep 27, 2019)

Pretty sure they take in a lot of money into the country through tourism, William and Harry are good role models as well in my opinion ðŸ˜€


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Nope but Iâ€™ll just get myself ready


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

BrianM said:



			Pretty sure they take in a lot of money into the country through tourism, William and Harry are good role models as well in my opinion ðŸ˜€
		
Click to expand...

Yeah that's probably not true and people will still come regardless if we have a royal family or not. Certainly doesn't stop me from going to France.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 27, 2019)

Yes please.

As per RH, tourists come for the history and monuments, as they do in Paris. Abolishing the monarchy wont stop the flow of tourists.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2019)

The three questions I get asked most, when in town, are...
Which way to Buckingham Palace?
Which way to Tower Bridge?
And, which way to Big Ben?

Think the monarchy are still quite a draw for tourists...


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			The three questions I get asked most, when in town, are...
Which way to Buckingham Palace?
Which way to Tower Bridge?
And, which way to Big Ben?

Think the monarchy are still quite a draw for tourists...
		
Click to expand...

I've been to those many times and not seen any one from the royal family.  I think they are visiting the actual buildings and would continue to no matter what.


----------



## Stuart_C (Sep 27, 2019)

Get rid of the viscount/earl/lady/lord hangers on first.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 27, 2019)

I am ok with the Queen, indifferent re jug ears, ok with Anne, Andrew is a waste of space, and possibly a criminal, Edward is non existent. The next gen, Harry and thingy are fine.
The other minor royals, like Edwards offspring, and the ginger woman, no. Bin off the titles and stuff, but I don't think the state directly supports them anyway.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			I've been to those many times and not seen any one from the royal family.  I think they are visiting the actual buildings and would continue to no matter what.
		
Click to expand...

But without the connection to monarchy and the possibility her majesty might be at home... Buck house, I feel, wouldn't be the attraction it is particularly for visitors from the far east....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 27, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			But without the connection to monarchy and the possibility her majesty might be at home... Buck house, I feel, wouldn't be the attraction it is particularly for visitors from the far east....
		
Click to expand...

Disagree, many tourists visit Balmoral and Osbourne House due to the Victorian connection.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/most-popular-attractions-in-britain-in-2016/


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			But without the connection to monarchy and the possibility her majesty might be at home... Buck house, I feel, wouldn't be the attraction it is particularly for visitors from the far east....
		
Click to expand...

Hmm but way less than half as many who visited the palace of versailles.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

100% yes. They're a relic of a bygone era where luck and wealth bought power and kept it by incessant cross breeding and high brow political manoeuvring. It's long past time that we got rid of things like the monarchy - they're leeches.


----------



## User62651 (Sep 27, 2019)

On the fence with this one, pros and cons.

Don't mind monarchy in itself and admire HM but I don't like how it props up the class system in the UK, prefer people get ahead through their own hard work and endeavours rather than what school they went to just inheriting title and privilege. Would be really progressive if George and Charlotte went to a state school - set an example. Appreciate a republic doesn't fully address that issue but it makes it more of a level playing field.

In Spain, Sweden, Netherlands and other countries their monarchies are much lower key than ours, I think we should do it more like that, serve a constitutional role but otherwise keep heads down. Opulence, grandeur, vast expense and decadent state occasions funded by taxpayer is not value for money when hospitals, police and schools need funding, these state occasions aren't looked up to as much now, it's rightly questioned and looked down on by many.

Most tedious for me is Wills/Kate or Harry/Meghan and things like the current 'Africa Tour' like they're a rock band. Following Di with the mine clearance PR stuff in Angola I just don't get, they do a quick photo op of Harry with a vest on, dredge up pics of Di doing the same 25 years ago as news apparently to raise 'awareness' as if we aren't aware. On BBC breakfast earlier Witchell announced excitedly that Harry was going to blow up a mine in a little while... strewth!
Witchell's or Mills's sycophancy on Beeb/Sky is often sick-enducing too, everyone here is struggling away and we're supposed to be interested in what Harry and Meghan are doing having a jaunt to Africa? None of them are inspiring speakers (Meghan better than rest) and Harry is 6th in line and of little consequence anymore. It's the media again forcing it down our throats. Instead of it making headlines in the prime time news slots why cant they just make a half hour show to be aired at the end of these taxpayer funded jollies (tours) on BBC2 for those that are interested? I feel an awful lot of us aren't.

Upside the mental health stuff they promote is probably helpful mixed with hypocrisy in being ambassadors for WWF or climate change from Harry/Wills which is beyond the pale given all the wildlife they kill for 'sport' and range rovers/private jets/helicopters/11 bedroom 'cottages' they make use of.

Keep monarchy but tone it way down, slash expenditure and stop the 'tours' that are rammed down our throats on tv as somehow important.


----------



## Don Barzini (Sep 27, 2019)

The Royal Family cost each taxpayer 69 pence last year.

Personally, I'm good with that.


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

Don Barzini said:



			The Royal Family cost each taxpayer 69 pence last year.

Personally, I'm good with that.
		
Click to expand...

Money that could be better spent elsewhere.  
My main issue i think is the whole notion of hereditary privilege and whether it has a place in modern society. 
It just doesn't sit well with me.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 27, 2019)

I think a root and branch review is long overdue. How many royals benefit from the money given but then look at how much tax is paid by the royals.

When this topic was brought up last year I looked up what taxes were paid by the Queen and Prince Charles. It runs well into millions, and even includes utility bills and council tax on the properties they live in.

It does need a review, and it does need slimming down but Iâ€™m not in favour of getting rid completely.


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2019)

Well 48% of the country think we shouldn't have our own Parliament, so I guess they feel the same goes for the Monarchy too! 

Lighten up!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Millions each year visit the Uk not just to see the buildings and art etc but also just on the off chance they may see the queen or any royal , the Queen is universally loved apart from in her own country , they earn the country millions both in revenue and tax

I for one am proud of our monarchy- far more respected than any self serving politician


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 27, 2019)

If we didnt have a Monarch,  it would be President Boris.....
As much as I donâ€™t like the hangers on and expense of them, I would rather that than President Boris, or Blair, Major, Thatcher etc etc.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 27, 2019)

IanM said:



			Well 48% of the country think we shouldn't have our own Parliament, so I guess they feel the same goes for the Monarchy too! 

Lighten up!
		
Click to expand...

Says who?


----------



## ger147 (Sep 27, 2019)

Maybe we should have a referendum to decide...


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Millions each year visit the Uk not just to see the buildings and art etc but also just on the off chance they may see the queen or any royal , the Queen is universally loved apart from in her own country , they earn the country millions both in revenue and tax

I for one am proud of our monarchy- far more respected than any self serving politician
		
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? You honestly think people visit in hope of seeing the queen? 
Oof


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			You're kidding right? You honestly think people visit in hope of seeing the queen?
Oof
		
Click to expand...

I think that because itâ€™s true - go to Buckingham Palace one day and see the queue of people waiting around on the odd chance they see her , have you seen the crowds when she visits abroad, and then just look at the amount of people that came to visit for the weddings - 60% increase in visitors into London for 3 days around both weddings. 

I donâ€™t think people will fully understand their impact to tourism 

How does it go - OofðŸ™„


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			You're kidding right? You honestly think people visit in hope of seeing the queen?
Oof
		
Click to expand...

Yes some do, have spoken to literally hundreds of tourists over the last 10 years and youâ€™d amazed how many think they might see her looking out of a window or walking in the grounds.
Iâ€™ve seen some start crying, hugging each other, jumping up and down, etc when sheâ€™s been driven past them in a motorcade.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 27, 2019)

It says a lot to me when the biggest reason being put forward for maintaining an anachronistic  form of Head of State is that it is good for tourism.

Some of those making this claim are also ones who are  critical of the privilege etc; that attaches to members of the aristocracy who, like the Royal Family, are dependent upon accidents of birth for their position. 

At least a President would have to stand for re-election.


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I think that because itâ€™s true - go to Buckingham Palace one day and see the queue of people waiting around on the odd chance they see her , have you seen the crowds when she visits abroad, and then just look at the amount of people that came to visit for the weddings - 60% increase in visitors into London for 3 days around both weddings.

I donâ€™t think people will fully understand their impact to tourism

How does it go - OofðŸ™„
		
Click to expand...

sorry I'll rephrase. 
People won't stop coming because we don't have a royal family.
Oof.
Palace of the versailles has over 6 million visitors a year compared to less than 2 to BP.
I'm pretty sure one of those doesn't have any royals in it.
The tourism thing is a tired argument.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			sorry I'll rephrase.
People won't stop coming because we don't have a royal family.
Oof.
Palace of the versailles has over 6 million visitors a year compared to less than 2 to BP.
I'm pretty sure one of those doesn't have any royals in it.
The tourism thing is a tired argument.
		
Click to expand...

If you want to see a fantastic Palace and crawl all over it, go to Versailles, if you want to see a working Palace were royalty live and stand a hundred yards from it (except for a few rooms a few months of the year) come to London.
The 2 Palaces are not comparable, with or without a Royal family London would still attract tourists, what canâ€™t be denied is the fact our Royal Family adds to the number coming here.
The Monarchy also plays a massive part in helping towards trade and relationships with Countries all over the world.


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			At least a President would have to stand for re-election.
		
Click to expand...

We already have several, and I've never seen a single one on a ballot paper!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			sorry I'll rephrase.
People won't stop coming because we don't have a royal family.
Oof.
Palace of the versailles has over 6 million visitors a year compared to less than 2 to BP.
I'm pretty sure one of those doesn't have any royals in it.
The tourism thing is a tired argument.
		
Click to expand...

2 mil ? Is that paying to enter ? What about the people that just turn up to see it ?

http://www.uncsbrp.org/tourism.htm



*Buckingham Palace is by far the most popular tourist attraction in London, as it attracts around 15 million tourists each year. Many people travel to Buckingham Palace to watch the world famous event known as the 'changing of the guard', and this event is so famous that it even inspired a song by Bob Dylan.*

You can deny it all you want but people visit the country because of our royal family and not just because of their buildings


----------



## pendodave (Sep 27, 2019)

If we didn't have one already, imagine suggesting that we have a family of hoorays having a permanently inherited role at the head of our country with a load of taxpayers cash and tax breaks thrown in for good measure.
Madness


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Millions each year visit the Uk not just to see the buildings and art etc but also just on the off chance they may see the queen or any royal , the Queen is universally loved apart from in her own country , they earn the country millions both in revenue and tax

I for one am proud of our monarchy- far more respected than any self serving politician
		
Click to expand...

You're proud of an unelected, money leeching antique of German origin, the product of years of inbreeding and nepotism? Proud?

Have a word with yourself.


----------



## JamesR (Sep 27, 2019)

I'm ambivalent towards the Royals - if they disappeared I wouldn't mind, as I have no interest in them, their activities, the news about their comings and goings etc.

But out of interest, you keep mentioning France, Paris, Versailles etc. Are you thinking of getting rid of our lot in the same way as the French ended their monarchy's reign?


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

JamesR said:



			I'm ambivalent towards the Royals - if they disappeared I wouldn't mind, as I have no interest in them, their activities, the news about their comings and goings etc.

But out of interest, you keep mentioning France, Paris, Versailles etc. Are you thinking of getting rid of our lot in the same way as the French ended their monarchy's reign? 

Click to expand...

Oof that would be extreme ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚
I'm not sure how we'd go about it? Remove the hereditary entitlement and let them die off and slowly fade into history?


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2019)

Just to be clear, references to origin is ok in some cases but not in others....  please forward the memo in case I transgress! 

Hilarious thread.   Whatever anyone posts won't change anyones' view a jot... or inform as we can pretty much guess who is where


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			You're proud of an unelected, money leeching antique of German origin, the product of years of inbreeding and nepotism? Proud?

Have a word with yourself.
		
Click to expand...

You slag off virtually  every part of this Country! Have you thought of living somewhere else that meets your needs.


----------



## JamesR (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You slag off virtually  every part of this Country! Have you thought of living somewhere else that meets your needs.

Click to expand...

Surely moaning about everything is one of the most important characteristics/benefits of being British?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

JamesR said:



			Surely moaning about everything is one of the most important characteristics/benefits of being British?
		
Click to expand...

Wonâ€™t be long until people start wearing poppies in public again and he go in to full on moaning mode.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			You're proud of an unelected, money leeching antique of German origin, the product of years of inbreeding and nepotism? Proud?

Have a word with yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Enough about Junker. What do you think about the royal family.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You slag off virtually  every part of this Country! Have you thought of living somewhere else that meets your needs.

Click to expand...

To be fair to Kellfire, I think most of the UK population, if not the World, are doing that ATM.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Wonâ€™t be long until people start wearing poppies in public again and he go in to full on moaning mode.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder, I must check if mine is still in my man drawer.


----------



## Dando (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You slag off virtually  every part of this Country! Have you thought of living somewhere else that meets your needs.

Click to expand...

hopefully he'll go back under his bridge soon


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Disagree, many tourists visit Balmoral and Osbourne House due to the Victorian connection.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/most-popular-attractions-in-britain-in-2016/

Click to expand...

Aye, but when visiting those locations you can take a look around... Aside from a few days a year all you can get (visiting buck house) is a look at a not overly great looking building through the railings and wish her maj comes to a window and waves...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			You're proud of an unelected, money leeching antique of German origin, the product of years of inbreeding and nepotism? Proud?

Have a word with yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Yes Iâ€™m proud of our monarchy , proud enough to serve them and my country for 22 years , proud of wearing their uniform. 

You can keep your smart arse disrespectful comments to yourself pal


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 27, 2019)

If it means the possibility of president Corbyn instead. Not a cat in hells  chance. 
God save the Queen.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Hmm but way less than half as many who visited the palace of versailles.
		
Click to expand...

But Versailles is a magnificent building in a beautiful setting and you can get a look around... Buck house is ugly and you can't get a look inside without invite...


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 27, 2019)

Don Barzini said:



			The Royal Family cost each taxpayer 69 pence last year.

Personally, I'm good with that.
		
Click to expand...

I would sooner it was 68p and get rid of a few on the payroll


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)




----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			You're proud of an unelectable, money leeching antique of left wing origin, the product of years of inbreeding and terrorist supporting clown? Proud?

Have a word with yourself.

Change a few words and That's Jezza and the royal family is more preferable.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 27, 2019)

Ave a sneaky feeling this thread  could have some input from fragger along the lines of " calm down calm down" ðŸ¤”ðŸ˜ðŸ˜‰


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You slag off virtually  every part of this Country! Have you thought of living somewhere else that meets your needs.

Click to expand...

Hyperbolic nonsense.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes Iâ€™m proud of our monarchy , proud enough to serve them and my country for 22 years , proud of wearing their uniform.

You can keep your smart arse disrespectful comments to yourself pal
		
Click to expand...

What did I say that isn't true? Do you have any clue about the origins of our royal family and the nature of royal families across Europe cross breeding with each other to make sure their countries remain in the family?

Don't drop the armed services into this as if it gives your point of view any more credibility. Well done, you did a job.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Blah blah blah
		
Click to expand...

I'm not proud of Jeremy Corbyn though I'm not sure of the relevance even if I did.


----------



## Neilds (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes Iâ€™m proud of our monarchy , proud enough to serve them and my country for 22 years , proud of wearing their uniform.

You can keep your smart arse disrespectful comments to yourself pal
		
Click to expand...

Only 22!! 32 next month and still counting ðŸ˜€ðŸ‡¬ðŸ‡§ðŸ‡¬ðŸ‡§


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

Neilds said:



			Only 22!! 32 next month and still counting ðŸ˜€ðŸ‡¬ðŸ‡§ðŸ‡¬ðŸ‡§
		
Click to expand...

Blocking promotion, bugger off


----------



## stefanovic (Sep 27, 2019)

Why do the royals have so much property when so many of their subjects are homeless?
They think they are gods but just like us they are mammals. I think they should go.

https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/g21562488/royal-family-homes/


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

stefanovic said:



			Why do the royals have so much property when so many of their subjects are homeless?
They think they are gods but just like us they are mammals. I think they should go.

https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/g21562488/royal-family-homes/

Click to expand...

The same question could be levelled at the countries religious institutions.


----------



## Dando (Sep 27, 2019)

stefanovic said:



			Why do the royals have so much property when so many of their subjects are homeless?
They think they are gods but just like us they are mammals. I think they should go.

https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/g21562488/royal-family-homes/

Click to expand...

they also like rugby!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			What did I say that isn't true? Do you have any clue about the origins of our royal family and the nature of royal families across Europe cross breeding with each other to make sure their countries remain in the family?
		
Click to expand...

Where did i say you said anything that was untrue - what I said was disrespectful, telling me to have a word with myself because Iâ€™m proud of the Monarchy is disrespectful, itâ€™s not up to you to decide what I have pride in 




			Don't drop the armed services into this as if it gives your point of view any more credibility. Well done, you did a job.
		
Click to expand...

I would have thought with your extensive knowledge of the Monarchy you would understand that the Queen is the head of the Armed Forces and there is a big link between the monarchy and the Armed Forces. 

And it wasnâ€™t just a job for me - and donâ€™t even start to suggest as such , youâ€™re not in a position to do so.


----------



## stefanovic (Sep 27, 2019)

Dando said:



			they also like rugby!
		
Click to expand...

And they are shape shifting reptilians.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Hyperbolic nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

Nice one Drillbit.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Neilds said:



			Only 22!! 32 next month and still counting ðŸ˜€ðŸ‡¬ðŸ‡§ðŸ‡¬ðŸ‡§
		
Click to expand...

Come back in 4 years.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

stefanovic said:



			And they are shape shifting reptilians.
		
Click to expand...

Are they running short of tin foil in the village?


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			The same question could be levelled at the countries religious institutions.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Religion should be marginalised and education should actively push that religion is NOT true but again historic abuse of power reigns.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Where did i say you said anything that was untrue - what I said was disrespectful, telling me to have a word with myself because Iâ€™m proud of the Monarchy is disrespectful, itâ€™s not up to you to decide what I have pride in

I would have thought with your extensive knowledge of the Monarchy you would understand that the Queen is the head of the Armed Forces and there is a big link between the monarchy and the Armed Forces.

And it wasnâ€™t just a job for me - and donâ€™t even start to suggest as such , youâ€™re not in a position to do so.
		
Click to expand...

Challenging people's beliefs is disrespectful to you? Did your time doing a job not encourage some sort of mental resilience against those who would question that particular profession? No one joints the armed forces to be popular - you know it's a truly divisive job.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Absolutely. Religion should be marginalised and education should actively push that religion is NOT true but again historic abuse of power reigns.
		
Click to expand...

H'mm! To me, that seems precisely like the 'abuse of power' you are criticising!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Challenging people's beliefs is disrespectful to you? Did your time doing a job not encourage some sort of mental resilience against those who would question that particular profession? No one joints the armed forces to be popular - you know it's a truly divisive job.
		
Click to expand...

Unless youâ€™ve actually served your Country and experienced what any of of us in uniform may of done what gives the right to tell anyone what they did or did not join for.
You only see what you believe which imo is narrow minded and shallow, you really arenâ€™t as intelligent as you try to portray yourself.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			H'mm! To me, that seems precisely like the 'abuse of power' you are criticising!
		
Click to expand...

How? You consider educating and driving out destructive forces as an abuse of power?


----------



## stefanovic (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Absolutely. Religion should be marginalised and education should actively push that religion is NOT true but again historic abuse of power reigns.
		
Click to expand...

Since when has religion not been true???
I believe in all things supernatural. Gods, immaculate conceptions, angels, holy ghosts, virgin births, the dead walking again.
Dead prophets riding up on a horse and splitting the moon. Buddhas reassembled after being cut up into little bits.
Royal shape shifters.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Unless youâ€™ve actually served your Country and experienced what any of of us in uniform may of done what gives the right to tell anyone what they did or did not join for.
You only see what you believe which imo is narrow minded and shallow, you really arenâ€™t as intelligent as you try to portray yourself.
		
Click to expand...

I don't consider being in the armed services to be any more serving your country than anyone who works in the public sector. It is a job for which you are paid.

As soon as someone describes it as "serving their country" it's an eye rolling moment. And yes, people I know who have been in the armed forces know my opinion on their career choice.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Challenging people's beliefs is disrespectful to you? Did your time doing a job not encourage some sort of mental resilience against those who would question that particular profession? No one joints the armed forces to be popular - you know it's a truly divisive job.
		
Click to expand...

But youâ€™re not â€œchallenging someoneâ€™s beliefsâ€ when you tell someone to â€œhave a word with themselvesâ€ 

Again you didnâ€™t question my profession , you called it a job when I see it as more than a job 

And yes I did join the armed forces for more than just a job and you are not in any position to tell me any different because you have never been in that position


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But youâ€™re not â€œchallenging someoneâ€™s beliefsâ€ when you tell someone to â€œhave a word with themselvesâ€

Again you didnâ€™t question my profession , you called it a job when I see it as more than a job

And yes I did join the armed forces for more than just a job and you are not in any position to tell me any different because you have never been in that position
		
Click to expand...

Ok. Let me ask you a question about the armed forces. 

Why was that ok but youâ€™re against capital punishment? Why is one state sponsored murder better than another?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			I don't consider being in the armed services to be any more serving your country than anyone who works in the public sector. It is a job for which you are paid.

As soon as someone describes it as "serving their country" it's an eye rolling moment. And yes, people I know who have been in the armed forces know my opinion on their career choice.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly your opinion is uninformed and based on..........................no actual experience.

Maybe you could tell us which jobs in the Public Sector are on the ground in foreign countries along side the Armed Forces, or are training in the UK everyday in preparation for such scenarios.

As youâ€™ve never served in the Armed Forces and probably never worked in the Fire, Police, Ambulance Service or Coastguard you opinion from behind your desk is probably well cemented.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Ok. Let me ask you a question about the armed forces.

Why was that ok but youâ€™re against capital punishment? Why is one state sponsored murder better than another?
		
Click to expand...

If you want ask questions like that then start another thread - this thread is about the monarchy


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Sadly your opinion is uninformed and based on..........................no actual experience.

Maybe you could tell us which jobs in the Public Sector are on the ground in foreign countries along side the Armed Forces, or are training in the UK everyday in preparation for such scenarios.

As youâ€™ve never served in the Armed Forces and probably never worked in the Fire, Police, Ambulance Service or Coastguard you opinion from behind your desk is probably well cemented.

Click to expand...

And yet you havenâ€™t addressed the fact that anyone in a public sector job is obviously serving their country.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If you want ask questions like that then start another thread - this thread is about the monarchy
		
Click to expand...

Lovely time to bow out. 

Conversations evolve and the role of those who consider themselves proud to serve the monarchy is clearly relevant.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Lovely time to bow out.

Conversations evolve and the role of those who consider themselves proud to serve the monarchy is clearly relevant.
		
Click to expand...

Ok - whats â€œstate sponsored murderâ€ in regards the armed forces ?

Yes I donâ€™t believe in the use of force as a punishment

I do believe in the use of minimum force to protect myself , my family , my friends etc etc as it was in the military



Kellfire said:



			And yet you havenâ€™t addressed the fact that anyone in a public sector job is obviously serving their country.
		
Click to expand...

Why does anyone need to address it ? No one has disputed that fact ?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 27, 2019)

Don't feed the troll


----------



## Neilds (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Challenging people's beliefs is disrespectful to you? Did your time doing a job not encourage some sort of mental resilience against those who would question that particular profession? No one joints the armed forces to be popular - you know it's a truly divisive job.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, really divisive until someone goes on strike, there is a national emergency or even the threat of a bit of a disturbance after brexit- then it is all â€˜call in the military â€˜.
Do you ever think before replying or just type?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			And yet you havenâ€™t addressed the fact that anyone in a public sector job is obviously serving their country.
		
Click to expand...

I never once considered my 36 years in the Army as a job, it most certainly wasnâ€™t for the money and I still donâ€™t consider knocking on a parents door (more than once) to destroy their lives by telling them their son has been killed as â€œjust a part of the jobâ€ Which Public Sector â€œjobâ€ outside the Police has that in the job description.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

drive4show said:



			Don't feed the troll
		
Click to expand...

Drillbit mate.


----------



## JamesR (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Drillbit mate. 

Click to expand...

WTF does "Drillbit" mean?


----------



## patricks148 (Sep 27, 2019)

stefanovic said:



			Why do the royals have so much property when so many of their subjects are homeless?
They think they are gods but just like us they are mammals. I think they should go.

https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/g21562488/royal-family-homes/

Click to expand...

i would tend to agree, time they went, no place in modern society for this any longer.

The French had the right idea


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

JamesR said:



			WTF does "Drillbit" mean?
		
Click to expand...

A Drillbit is a Boring Tool.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2019)

patricks148 said:



			i would tend to agree, time they went, no place in modern society for this any longer.

The French had the right idea
		
Click to expand...

Didn't rid themselves of leeches on the public purse though... The aides of Macron now get to live the high life...


----------



## patricks148 (Sep 27, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Didn't rid themselves of leeches on the public purse though... The aides of Macron now get to live the high life...
		
Click to expand...

and the Russians


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I never once considered my 36 years in the Army as a job, it most certainly wasnâ€™t for the money and I still donâ€™t consider knocking on a parents door (more than once) to destroy their lives by telling them their son has been killed as â€œjust a part of the jobâ€ Which Public Sector â€œjobâ€ outside the Police has that in the job description.
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of your question because it is absolutely NOTHING to do with the concept of serving a country.

I could consider my job to be a carrot. It would still be my job. As your time in the army was a job.

Why did you go into the army? To hurt people?


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Neilds said:



			Yes, really divisive until someone goes on strike, there is a national emergency or even the threat of a bit of a disturbance after brexit- then it is all â€˜call in the military â€˜.
Do you ever think before replying or just type?
		
Click to expand...

You think a lot of people think things like "call in the military" as a first response? Wow. You are truly blind to the populous.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok - whats â€œstate sponsored murderâ€ in regards the armed forces ?

Yes I donâ€™t believe in the use of force as a punishment

I do believe in the use of minimum force to protect myself , my family , my friends etc etc as it was in the military

Why does anyone need to address it ? No one has disputed that fact ?
		
Click to expand...


Your first question shows that you've taken the required conditioning for someone in the armed forces - a blasÃ© view on injuring or killing others en masse without question.

Your last question - yes they did! Read Paul's input.

There's a particular type of mind set that someone needs to have to take up arms - I don't have it and don't want it around me or my loved ones.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			I don't understand the point of your question because it is absolutely NOTHING to do with the concept of serving a country.

I could consider my job to be a carrot. It would still be my job. As your time in the army was a job.

Why did you go into the army? To hurt people?
		
Click to expand...

Uniforms and Guns....... oh, and I was bullied at school so I turned to crime, the police got close so it was either the Costa Del Sol or hide in the Army and hone my killing skills.
I now live alone, living off the land unable to fit back in to society, drink and mushrooms (found on the golf course) are my only friends.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Your first question shows that you've taken the required conditioning for someone in the armed forces - a blasÃ© view on injuring or killing others en masse without question.
		
Click to expand...

Conditioned? Sorry can you explain ? 

And where did I have a blase view on killing someone- for me itâ€™s always the last resort for firearms to be used 



			Your last question - yes they did! Read Paul's input.

There's a particular type of mind set that someone needs to have to take up arms *- I don't have it and don't want it around me or my loved ones.*

Click to expand...

But I bet you donâ€™t mind one bit them protecting your condescending arse


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Your first question shows that you've taken the required conditioning for someone in the armed forces - a blasÃ© view on injuring or killing others en masse without question.

Your last question - yes they did! Read Paul's input.

*There's a particular type of mind set that someone needs to have to take up arms - I don't have it and don't want it around me or my loved ones.*

Click to expand...

Good job there are men and women then who are able to take up arms to protect you and your loved ones.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			You think a lot of people think things like "call in the military" as a first response? Wow. You are truly blind to the populous.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m damned sure theyâ€™re not thinking â€œcall in the spineless, opinionated pencil pushers from the NHSâ€


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

I think chaps, someone has been rejected by Capita


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			You're proud of an unelected, money leeching antique of German origin, the product of years of inbreeding and nepotism? Proud?

Have a word with yourself.
		
Click to expand...

No it is his opinion, which you must respect even if you disagree with it.

May I suggest that you have a quiet word with yourself.


----------



## Dando (Sep 27, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			No it is his opinion, which you must respect even if you disagree with it.

May I suggest that you have a quiet word with yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Heâ€™ll still manage to have an arguememt


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 27, 2019)

Don Barzini said:



			The Royal Family cost each taxpayer 69 pence last year.

Personally, I'm good with that.
		
Click to expand...

 That's one less 69 for me .


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 27, 2019)

Sorry I meant 99.


----------



## 3offTheTee (Sep 27, 2019)

Dando said:



			Heâ€™ll still manage to have an arguememt
		
Click to expand...

Oh no he wonâ€™t!!


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			How? You consider educating and driving out destructive forces as an abuse of power?
		
Click to expand...

Certainly - when they are used in the way you suggest! To teach that 'religion is NOT true', as you suggest, would amount to brainwashing!


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Yes some do, have spoken to literally hundreds of tourists over the last 10 years and youâ€™d amazed how many think they might see her looking out of a window or walking in the grounds.
Iâ€™ve seen some start crying, hugging each other, jumping up and down, etc when sheâ€™s been driven past them in a motorcade.
		
Click to expand...

Einstein was right. Not referring to his theories, but his quote.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			You think a lot of people think things like "call in the military" as a first response? Wow. You are truly blind to the populous.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't see the requirement for shoring up the Whaley dam. Don't rember seeing any civilian AC involved. You might like to remind us who where called for Air Sea Rescue untill about 3 years ago.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			Certainly - when they are used in the way you suggest! To teach that 'religion is NOT true', as you suggest, would amount to brainwashing!
		
Click to expand...

But itâ€™s true. So itâ€™s not.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			No it is his opinion, which you must respect even if you disagree with it.

May I suggest that you have a quiet word with yourself.
		
Click to expand...

We certainly do not have to respect anyoneâ€™s opinion for the sake of it. What a crazy thing to say.


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2019)

...respect their right to have one, I guess was meant.................  which I am sure you do!


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			You obviously didn't see the requirement for shoring up the Whaley damn. Don't rember seeing any civilian AC involved. You might like to remind us who where called for Air Sea Rescue untill about 3 years ago.
		
Click to expand...

...many of the same blokes are still flying the 'copters!!


----------



## arnieboy (Sep 27, 2019)

I respect both the Armed Services and the Emergency Services as you know they will be there should you need them. I also respect the Queen but agree that the entourage should be curtailed.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			But itâ€™s true. So itâ€™s not.
		
Click to expand...


Kindly explain precisely how you know that for certain!


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxholer said:




Kindly explain precisely how you know that for certain!
		
Click to expand...

If you believe, youâ€™re brainwashed and wonâ€™t be convinced. If you donâ€™t, youâ€™re being facetious so I wonâ€™t bother.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			If you believe, youâ€™re brainwashed and wonâ€™t be convinced. If you donâ€™t, youâ€™re being facetious so I wonâ€™t bother.
		
Click to expand...

That's a complete cop-out! The REAL answer is that you cannot prove it - one way or the other!

So I repeat my assertion that requiring that 'education should actively push that religion is NOT true', as you posted, is precisely the sort of 'abuse of power' that you were criticising!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire, you obviously donâ€™t particularly like anything this country has to offer, you criticise time and time again.

I would suggest that New Zealand would be a better place for you to live, 
But that would be very unfair to New Zealand.


----------



## PieMan (Sep 27, 2019)

Interesting but when you actually look at the duties and engagements the Royal Family actually undertake - especially supporting charities and local community groups and organisations - then I would say there's a good chance they work a lot bloody harder than a lot of people who would like to do away with them!!


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 27, 2019)

My late Dad used to do the flight plans for the Royal Flight. He always said if Anne was to retire, it would halve his work load. She was the hardest working Royal, by far.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Kellfire, you obviously donâ€™t particularly like anything this country has to offer, you criticise time and time again.

I would suggest that New Zealand would be a better place for you to live,
But that would be very unfair to New Zealand.
		
Click to expand...

He'd be given a short shrift very quickly with the attitude he has shown on here!

I'd suggest the Kerguelen Islands would be more appropriate! I'm certain the locals would be far more receptive to his attitude!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			My late Dad used to do the flight plans for the Royal Flight. He always said if Anne was to retire, it would halve his work load. She was the hardest working Royal, by far.
		
Click to expand...

The woman is a human dynamo and she expects those her around her to be the same.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			He'd be given a short shrift very quickly with the attitude he has shown on here!

I'd suggest the Kerguelen Islands would be more appropriate! I'm certain the locals would be far more receptive to his attitude!
		
Click to expand...

 What do you have against the French.


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			My late Dad used to do the flight plans for the Royal Flight. He always said if Anne was to retire, it would halve his work load. She was the hardest working Royal, by far.
		
Click to expand...

I think work is overstating things.....


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			I think work is overstating things.....
		
Click to expand...

Yes must be nice to go to work in a chauffeur driven Bentley.
But I would not like to do all the boring stuff Liz does.
Keep the Queen and close family but all the hangers on need binning.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			I think work is overstating things.....
		
Click to expand...

You should try retirement


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			I think work is overstating things.....
		
Click to expand...

What is it then if itâ€™s not work ? 

Work comes in all shapes and sizes and a lot of royals work hard in regards engagements and charity events , a lot helping to raise a lot of money


----------



## 3offTheTee (Sep 27, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Kellfire, you obviously donâ€™t particularly like anything this country has to offer, you criticise time and time again.

I would suggest that New Zealand would be a better place for you to live,
But that would be very unfair to New Zealand.
		
Click to expand...

Phil

I take exception to that comment. We have family in N.Z and 4 grandkids there. Why should they have to suffer?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 27, 2019)

Oh good, another thread railroaded by someone refusing to accept other peoples opinions or budge from their dogmatic point of view. No wonder new members don't always hang around.

As for the original question, it needs refining and the public money spent needs to reduced. I do think however they do some good both at home and abroad and there is still a place but I'd like to see the younger generations like Harry and William taking centre stage as the figurehead of the royal family moving on and try to make a greater connection with the public and nation as a whole


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Kellfire, you obviously donâ€™t particularly like anything this country has to offer, you criticise time and time again.

I would suggest that New Zealand would be a better place for you to live,
But that would be very unfair to New Zealand.
		
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. I think it takes a warped mindset to want to be part of the armed services because every instinct in my body says donâ€™t hurt/kill others in the name of â€œservingâ€ any particular region I was born in. 

I hate the monarchy because they are an archaic family who leech from the public and offer us nothing in terms of their actual humanity. Tourism? I really couldnâ€™t give a damn about that. Weâ€™re more than just the money we can rake in off foreigners. 

There is a lot to love about this country but right now weâ€™re doing our best in society to destroy that. Brexit is but one massive cog in the engine towards the degradation of the UK. We did a lot to improve ourselves as a nation after the evil we perpetrated around the world as the Empire and now weâ€™re in danger of undoing it all. 

But all of that is separate from the fact that I do NOT feel pride in being British because why the hell should I? I just so happened to be born here. Why should I feel proud of the land mass where I was ejected from my mother? What a crazy concept invented by people desperate to find worth in their existence. Utterly nonsensical. 

Have you noticed how Iâ€™ve been mocked in this thread for working for the NHS? One of the last things we really have going for us as an entire nation that could be held up as something we could collectively be proud for?

And I was insulted for that for questioning the morals of the armed services who actively go out to do the opposite of what the NHS does? Just think about that.

If you think that the best marksmen in the armyâ€™s history is a better person than the most diligent cleaner in the NHS, then you are WRONG.

I guess we all have different beliefs and I canâ€™t change that but there are many that I sure as hell donâ€™t respect and arenâ€™t worthy of it.


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What is it then if itâ€™s not work ?

Work comes in all shapes and sizes and a lot of royals work hard in regards engagements and charity events , a lot helping to raise a lot of money
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			What is it then if itâ€™s not work ?

Work comes in all shapes and sizes and a lot of royals work hard in regards engagements and charity events , a lot helping to raise a lot of money
		
Click to expand...

I dunno, being born into a life of excessive luxury and never having to worry about earning money  or providing for your family?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Utter nonsense. I think it takes a warped mindset to want to be part of the armed services because every instinct in my body says donâ€™t hurt/kill others in the name of â€œservingâ€ any particular region I was born in.

I hate the monarchy because they are an archaic family who leech from the public and offer us nothing in terms of their actual humanity. Tourism? I really couldnâ€™t give a damn about that. Weâ€™re more than just the money we can rake in off foreigners.

There is a lot to love about this country but right now weâ€™re doing our best in society to destroy that. Brexit is but one massive cog in the engine towards the degradation of the UK. We did a lot to improve ourselves as a nation after the evil we perpetrated around the world as the Empire and now weâ€™re in danger of undoing it all.

But all of that is separate from the fact that I do NOT feel pride in being British because why the hell should I? I just so happened to be born here. Why should I feel proud of the land mass where I was ejected from my mother? What a crazy concept invented by people desperate to find worth in their existence. Utterly nonsensical.

Have you noticed how Iâ€™ve been mocked in this thread for working for the NHS? One of the last things we really have going for us as an entire nation that could be held up as something we could collectively be proud for?

And I was insulted for that for questioning the morals of the armed services who actively go out to do the opposite of what the NHS does? Just think about that.

If you think that the best marksmen in the armyâ€™s history is a better person than the most diligent cleaner in the NHS, then you are WRONG.

I guess we all have different beliefs and I canâ€™t change that but there are many that I sure as hell donâ€™t respect and arenâ€™t worthy of it.
		
Click to expand...

You do come over as someone who is very discontent and angry with life, are you doing anything constructive about changing things?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What is it then if itâ€™s not work ?

Work comes in all shapes and sizes and a lot of royals work hard in regards engagements and charity events , a lot helping to raise a lot of money
		
Click to expand...

In fairness to his comment, they are not really at the coal face, most people would be happy to exchange lifestyles.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Utter nonsense. I think it takes a warped mindset to want to be part of the armed services because every instinct in my body says donâ€™t hurt/kill others in the name of â€œservingâ€ any particular region I was born in.

I hate the monarchy because they are an archaic family who leech from the public and offer us nothing in terms of their actual humanity. Tourism? I really couldnâ€™t give a damn about that. Weâ€™re more than just the money we can rake in off foreigners.

There is a lot to love about this country but right now weâ€™re doing our best in society to destroy that. Brexit is but one massive cog in the engine towards the degradation of the UK. We did a lot to improve ourselves as a nation after the evil we perpetrated around the world as the Empire and now weâ€™re in danger of undoing it all.

But all of that is separate from the fact that I do NOT feel pride in being British because why the hell should I? I just so happened to be born here. Why should I feel proud of the land mass where I was ejected from my mother? What a crazy concept invented by people desperate to find worth in their existence. Utterly nonsensical.

Have you noticed how Iâ€™ve been mocked in this thread for working for the NHS? One of the last things we really have going for us as an entire nation that could be held up as something we could collectively be proud for?

And I was insulted for that for questioning the morals of the armed services who actively go out to do the opposite of what the NHS does? Just think about that.

If you think that the best marksmen in the armyâ€™s history is a better person than the most diligent cleaner in the NHS, then you are WRONG.

I guess we all have different beliefs and I canâ€™t change that but there are many that I sure as hell donâ€™t respect and arenâ€™t worthy of it.
		
Click to expand...

I have a warped mindset, cheers.

Some of the best NHS Doctors have saved lives in civvy street using techniques they learnt in the Military.

What if the NHSâ€™s best cleaner is an Army Reservist and the best Marksman in the Armyâ€™s history

Glad to see your local shop has got the tin foil back in stock.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Utter nonsense. I think it takes a warped mindset to want to be part of the armed services because every instinct in my body says donâ€™t hurt/kill others in the name of â€œservingâ€ any particular region I was born in.
		
Click to expand...

I'll bite even though it appears you were dropped on your head when your mother unfortunately ejected you into this country.

You obviously have no idea what the complete role of the armed forces is or you wouldn't write such obnoxiously inflammatory nonsense.

Go away and do some proper research and find out why and how the services assisted with the Ebola crises, the current work being carried out in the West Indies, the fire fighting carried out when firemen go on strike, flood relief, delivering food and resources to the elderly in periods of extreme weather because the local community-you can't be bothered to help, vital peace keeping work in Africa.

You obviously post just to inflame and have never posted anything of substance, come across to Arrse and grow a pair.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I have a warped mindset, cheers.

Some of the best NHS Doctors have saved lives in civvy street using techniques they learnt in the Military.

What if the NHSâ€™s best cleaner is an Army Reservist and the best Marksman in the Armyâ€™s history

Glad to see your local shop has got the tin foil back in stock.
		
Click to expand...

The fact that a vast number of Dr, nurses and technicians in the NHS are members of the armed forces may have passed him by.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			The fact that a vast number of Dr, nurses and technicians in the NHS are members of the armed forces may have passed him by.
		
Click to expand...

NHS is full of those with a warped mindset.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			NHS is full of those with a warped mindset. 

Click to expand...

That's why they enjoy sticking things in every orifice


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			That's why they enjoy sticking things in every orifice
		
Click to expand...

Is it a friend or an enima.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 28, 2019)

Sorry Paul but for the second time this week ave got to disagree with you. Some of us that havent served do realise what you have done for my freedom. Some of us have a more open mind. That's the reason why I will be laying a Royal british legion wreath when in pearl Harbour to thank those that paid the ultimate sacrifice. ðŸ˜˜ðŸ‘


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 28, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			That's why they enjoy sticking things in every orifice
		
Click to expand...

Let's not talk about when I had me scrotum shaved pre vasectomy. He enjoyed that


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Utter nonsense. I think it takes a warped mindset to want to be part of the armed services because every instinct in my body says donâ€™t hurt/kill others in the name of â€œservingâ€ any particular region I was born in.
		
Click to expand...

It takes a seriously bitter uneducated idiot to think people are just joining the armed services to â€œhurt and killâ€ someone - I didnâ€™t join the military to do that , I joined to protect and serve my country , to make the country a safer place so that unappreciated doorknobs like you can slag us off in safety. 




			But all of that is separate from the fact that I do NOT feel pride in being British because why the hell should I? I just so happened to be born here. Why should I feel proud of the land mass where I was ejected from my mother? What a crazy concept invented by people desperate to find worth in their existence. Utterly nonsensical.
		
Click to expand...

What a hollow bitter life you must have. So because Iâ€™m proud to be British , proud of our monarchy and was proud to serve my country Iâ€™m desperate to find worth ?!? 




			And I was insulted for that for questioning the morals of the armed services who actively go out to do the opposite of what the NHS does? Just think about that.
		
Click to expand...

The morals and ethic of the Armed Services is to protect the country and itâ€™s people - how is that the opposite of the NHS ? 




			If you think that the best marksmen in the armyâ€™s history is a better person than the most diligent cleaner in the NHS, then you are WRONG.

I guess we all have different beliefs and I canâ€™t change that but there are many that I sure as hell donâ€™t respect and arenâ€™t worthy of it.
		
Click to expand...

I didnâ€™t realise it was a competition between the cleaner and a soldier they all have a part to play in the country . 

But you keep slagging off people who protect you


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2019)

Anyone fancy looking at facts, instead of opinions?

The Sovereign Grant, i.e. the money paid to the Royal Family = Â£82.2m
That's up 41% on last year, but includes the ongoing refurb costs for the Royal Palaces.

The Core Grant, i.e. money paid to the Royals was Â£49.3m

How many visitors did the Royal Palaces have last year, and how much money was generated?

7.9m visitors, generating an *income of Â£395m*..................... would as many people have visited if there wasn't the hype around royalty? I can't be 'arrised arguing the yes's and no's, especially as its subjective and opinion based.

What did the Royals do in the way of Royal engagements in the year?

3,200 Royal engagements in 223 working days. The Queen obviously didn't do all of those. And some of those engagements were over several days, e.g. visits to countries.

Further to that, the Queen has an income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is run as a business. Like any business owner she pays business tax and income tax, and she also pays NI for the employees and pension contributions. The business generated just over Â£20m. Charles, similarly, has significant business interests and, similarly, pays a good chunk in taxes etc.

All the Royal finances and incomes are listed, as are all the taxes they paid. I looked at it last year, when a similar argument was raging, but can't be bothered with the minute detail this year - if you're interested, go and look for it. Its an easy search.

In my opinion, the money received by the state far, far outweighed the money paid out. And don't forget that the maintenance of the buildings would probably have occurred irrespective of whether or not there was a Royal Family. So, if you take the (core) Sovereign Grant of Â£49.3m, then minus the taxes etc that the Royal Family paid and minus whatever % of the Â£395m you feel the attraction of the Royal Family has generated ------ just what is the genuine cost to the state of the Royal Family? Are they really leeches?

The republicans and anti-monarchists will never change their mind, I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least base the argument around some facts rather than say, "the Royal Family are leeches."


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Sorry Paul but for the second time this week ave got to disagree with you. Some of us that havent served do realise what you have done for my freedom. Some of us have a more open mind. That's the reason why I will be laying a Royal british legion wreath when in pearl Harbour to thank those that paid the ultimate sacrifice. ðŸ˜˜ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

Not everyone handsome, just those who try to tell me who I am and how I think.
You know I live in an ex Pit area and have heard some horror stories, but I wouldnâ€™t have the cheek to claim I know more about mining than you.

Safe trip petal


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 28, 2019)

This thread is about the Monarchy, not the Armed Forces.
Can we please get back on track.


----------



## Papas1982 (Sep 28, 2019)

Re the op. I would scrap them.

I'm not overly fussed by the cost, we waste plenty as a country. The extra 70p doesn't bother me. It does however show that no matter how much we big up the tourism they bring it still doesn't offset the money they cost us. 

My issue is that whilst there are a few that do great things, many more are as bad as those that end up love island or get me out of here. 

I get no pride from them, I don't sing the anthem. 

As to the way this thread has gone. I wish we didn't need a military, unfortunately for all the world leaders talking of peace and trade deals etc. Its human nature to want more and I fear if any superpower showed a sign of weakness then an allie would soon take advantage. 

What I would say to those with military service is that you chose to protect one and all without prejudice. Those people aren't obligated to then show gratitude, you protected their right to choose. 

Some are strongly against military force. Just as some are pro war, vegan, religious or not. You may not agree with any or all of their life choices, but those are their freedoms.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			This thread is about the Monarchy, not the Armed Forces.
Can we please get back on track.
		
Click to expand...

The Monarch is the head of the Armed Forces, therefore forever linked. Youâ€™re welcome


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

Papas1982 said:



			Re the op. I would scrap them.

I'm not overly fussed by the cost, we waste plenty as a country. The extra 70p doesn't bother me. It does however show that no matter how much we big up the tourism they bring it still doesn't offset the money they cost us.

My issue is that whilst there are a few that do great things, many more are as bad as those that end up love island or get me out of here.

I get no pride from them, I don't sing the anthem.

As to the way this thread has gone. I wish we didn't need a military, unfortunately for all the world leaders talking of peace and trade deals etc. Its human nature to want more and I fear if any superpower showed a sign of weakness then an allie would soon take advantage.

What I would say to those with military service is that you chose to protect one and all without prejudice. Those people aren't obligated to then show gratitude, you protected their right to choose.

Some are strongly against military force. Just as some are pro war, vegan, religious or not. You may not agree with any or all of their life choices, but those are their freedoms.
		
Click to expand...

I suggest you read Hobbitâ€™s post above as that seems to suggest the opposite about what they cost.

As for us choosing to serve, yes we did and we realise just how sadly we are needed, we donâ€™t live in a perfect world, you could argue if no one broke the law we wouldnâ€™t need the Police, but Iâ€™m not going to accuse anyone who has served in the Police of having mental problems or say they only joined the Police to drive round in fast cars and to beat people up.

I donâ€™t need anyone to show gratitude or say anything, in fact Iâ€™m very happy for them to ignore us, but they should at least recognise that the their freedoms have been fought for by men and women in the past who were willing to serve and those serving today to protect their future.


----------



## Papas1982 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I suggest you read Hobbitâ€™s post above as that seems to suggest the opposite about what they cost.

As for us choosing to serve, yes we did and we realise just how sadly we are needed, we donâ€™t live in a perfect world, you could argue if no one broke the law we wouldnâ€™t need the Police, but Iâ€™m not going to accuse anyone who has served in the Police of having mental problems or say they only joined the Police to drive round in fast cars and to beat people up.

I donâ€™t need anyone to show gratitude or say anything, in fact Iâ€™m very happy for them to ignore us, but they should at least recognise that the their freedoms have been fought for by men and women in the past who were willing to serve and those serving today to protect their future.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't condoning people saying you have mental issues if you serve, in fact I'd say most May leave with them due to what they've done that goes against human nature. If people were inclined to want the glory of war they woukdnt end up with ptsd. I agree re police too which is why accept we need the forces. 

In regards to your last line, that's where we disagree slightly. Your service whilst appreciated by me is built up as a selfless act therefor there should be no expectations as to how those that haven't served react or respect your work.

Will have another look for hobbits response. But as I said, the costs weren't really a factor for my thoughts re the costs.


----------



## PieMan (Sep 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Anyone fancy looking at facts, instead of opinions?

The Sovereign Grant, i.e. the money paid to the Royal Family = Â£82.2m
That's up 41% on last year, but includes the ongoing refurb costs for the Royal Palaces.

The Core Grant, i.e. money paid to the Royals was Â£49.3m

How many visitors did the Royal Palaces have last year, and how much money was generated?

7.9m visitors, generating an *income of Â£395m*..................... would as many people have visited if there wasn't the hype around royalty? I can't be 'arrised arguing the yes's and no's, especially as its subjective and opinion based.

What did the Royals do in the way of Royal engagements in the year?

3,200 Royal engagements in 223 working days. The Queen obviously didn't do all of those. And some of those engagements were over several days, e.g. visits to countries.

Further to that, the Queen has an income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is run as a business. Like any business owner she pays business tax and income tax, and she also pays NI for the employees and pension contributions. The business generated just over Â£20m. Charles, similarly, has significant business interests and, similarly, pays a good chunk in taxes etc.

All the Royal finances and incomes are listed, as are all the taxes they paid. I looked at it last year, when a similar argument was raging, but can't be bothered with the minute detail this year - if you're interested, go and look for it. Its an easy search.

In my opinion, the money received by the state far, far outweighed the money paid out. And don't forget that the maintenance of the buildings would probably have occurred irrespective of whether or not there was a Royal Family. So, if you take the (core) Sovereign Grant of Â£49.3m, then minus the taxes etc that the Royal Family paid and minus whatever % of the Â£395m you feel the attraction of the Royal Family has generated ------ just what is the genuine cost to the state of the Royal Family? Are they really leeches?

The republicans and anti-monarchists will never change their mind, I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least base the argument around some facts rather than say, "the Royal Family are leeches."
		
Click to expand...

Great post.

But you also forgot to add they're Germans and in-breds after "leeches"!!! ðŸ˜‰


----------



## Papas1982 (Sep 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Anyone fancy looking at facts, instead of opinions?

The Sovereign Grant, i.e. the money paid to the Royal Family = Â£82.2m
That's up 41% on last year, but includes the ongoing refurb costs for the Royal Palaces.

The Core Grant, i.e. money paid to the Royals was Â£49.3m

How many visitors did the Royal Palaces have last year, and how much money was generated?

7.9m visitors, generating an *income of Â£395m*..................... would as many people have visited if there wasn't the hype around royalty? I can't be 'arrised arguing the yes's and no's, especially as its subjective and opinion based.

What did the Royals do in the way of Royal engagements in the year?

3,200 Royal engagements in 223 working days. The Queen obviously didn't do all of those. And some of those engagements were over several days, e.g. visits to countries.

Further to that, the Queen has an income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is run as a business. Like any business owner she pays business tax and income tax, and she also pays NI for the employees and pension contributions. The business generated just over Â£20m. Charles, similarly, has significant business interests and, similarly, pays a good chunk in taxes etc.

All the Royal finances and incomes are listed, as are all the taxes they paid. I looked at it last year, when a similar argument was raging, but can't be bothered with the minute detail this year - if you're interested, go and look for it. Its an easy search.

In my opinion, the money received by the state far, far outweighed the money paid out. And don't forget that the maintenance of the buildings would probably have occurred irrespective of whether or not there was a Royal Family. So, if you take the (core) Sovereign Grant of Â£49.3m, then minus the taxes etc that the Royal Family paid and minus whatever % of the Â£395m you feel the attraction of the Royal Family has generated ------ just what is the genuine cost to the state of the Royal Family? Are they really leeches?

The republicans and anti-monarchists will never change their mind, I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least base the argument around some facts rather than say, "the Royal Family are leeches."
		
Click to expand...

You've obviously a much better grasp of all this having looked Into it previously. Does the sovereign grant also cover the cost of protection etc, or is that seperate or covered by the family themselves.

It certainly makes a better argument to keep them on a financial basis.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I suggest you read Hobbitâ€™s post above as that seems to suggest the opposite about what they cost.

As for us choosing to serve, yes we did and we realise just how sadly we are needed, we donâ€™t live in a perfect world, you could argue if no one broke the law we wouldnâ€™t need the Police, but Iâ€™m not going to accuse anyone who has served in the Police of having mental problems or say they only joined the Police to drive round in fast cars and to beat people up.

I donâ€™t need anyone to show gratitude or say anything, in fact Iâ€™m very happy for them to ignore us, but they should at least recognise that the their freedoms have been fought for by men and women in the past who were willing to serve and those serving today to protect their future.
		
Click to expand...

We need the Police, and perhaps stronger policing because of the crime rate. And the ills of the world require a stronger version of the Police. Imagine trying to curtail the ills of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda with a man in a stab vest holding pepper spray. Lets be reasonable, without the armed forces to step in to hotspots, at the behest of the UN, what would be the outcome.

Does the world's politicians respond to each humanitarian crisis in the right way, or treat each hotspot with equanimity? No, and you only have to look at the response to the Saudi missile attacks compared to what goes on in Burma or northern India. But that's a separate issue.


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Anyone fancy looking at facts, instead of opinions?

The Sovereign Grant, i.e. the money paid to the Royal Family = Â£82.2m
That's up 41% on last year, but includes the ongoing refurb costs for the Royal Palaces.

The Core Grant, i.e. money paid to the Royals was Â£49.3m

How many visitors did the Royal Palaces have last year, and how much money was generated?

7.9m visitors, generating an *income of Â£395m*..................... would as many people have visited if there wasn't the hype around royalty? I can't be 'arrised arguing the yes's and no's, especially as its subjective and opinion based.

What did the Royals do in the way of Royal engagements in the year?

3,200 Royal engagements in 223 working days. The Queen obviously didn't do all of those. And some of those engagements were over several days, e.g. visits to countries.

Further to that, the Queen has an income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is run as a business. Like any business owner she pays business tax and income tax, and she also pays NI for the employees and pension contributions. The business generated just over Â£20m. Charles, similarly, has significant business interests and, similarly, pays a good chunk in taxes etc.

All the Royal finances and incomes are listed, as are all the taxes they paid. I looked at it last year, when a similar argument was raging, but can't be bothered with the minute detail this year - if you're interested, go and look for it. Its an easy search.

In my opinion, the money received by the state far, far outweighed the money paid out. And don't forget that the maintenance of the buildings would probably have occurred irrespective of whether or not there was a Royal Family. So, if you take the (core) Sovereign Grant of Â£49.3m, then minus the taxes etc that the Royal Family paid and minus whatever % of the Â£395m you feel the attraction of the Royal Family has generated ------ just what is the genuine cost to the state of the Royal Family? Are they really leeches?

The republicans and anti-monarchists will never change their mind, I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least base the argument around some facts rather than say, "the Royal Family are leeches."
		
Click to expand...

Missing key facts around security... when a royal stops by to open your new building who pays for the police etc ?
The true cost of supporting the the royals is more like 300 million .
Granted a small amount in overall UK budget terms , but still an eye watering amount which could be better spent elsewhere.
Thats before we even talk about if there is really a place for them at all in a modern society where it's all about  equality equality equality.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

Papas1982 said:



			I wasn't condoning people saying you have mental issues if you serve, in fact I'd say most May leave with them due to what they've done that goes against human nature. If people were inclined to want the glory of war they woukdnt end up with ptsd. I agree re police too which is why accept we need the forces.

In regards to your last line, that's where we disagree slightly. Your service whilst appreciated by me is built up as a selfless act therefor there should be no expectations as to how those that haven't served react or respect your work.

Will have another look for hobbits response. But as I said, the costs weren't really a factor for my thoughts re the costs.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe itâ€™s my fat thumbs, Iâ€™m not asking for anything in terms if selfless acts etc, I just find it weird(not you) that people go on about freedom of speech or right to say whatever, without at least recognising some of those things we enjoy today in the UK has been because people did serve their Country and some paid the ultimate price.
We all wish there were no wars etc, but as youâ€™ll appreciate we donâ€™t live in that world sadly.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			Missing key facts around security... when a royal stops by to open your new building who pays for the police etc ?
The true cost of supporting the the royals is more like 300 million .
Granted a small amount in overall UK budget terms , but still an eye watering amount which could be better spent elsewhere.
Thats before we even talk about if there is really a place for them at all in a modern society where it's all about  *equality equality equality*.
		
Click to expand...

Good one.


----------



## Backache (Sep 28, 2019)

I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc.  WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then? 
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.


----------



## drdel (Sep 28, 2019)

Backache said:



			I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc.  WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.
		
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. We've been lucky with the current Monarch, but what follows might be tricky.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2019)

Backache said:



			I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc.  WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.
		
Click to expand...

Without resorting to an argument, don't you think that's ageist? There's younger ones amongst the Royals, e.g. Andrew, who'd be my last choice and then some to be monarch, and he's way younger than the Queen or Charles but him, no way on God's earth.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Without resorting to and argument, don't you think that's ageist? There's younger ones amongst the Royals, e.g. Andrew, who'd be my last choice and then some to be monarch, and he's way younger than the Queen or Charles but him, no way on God's earth.
		
Click to expand...

It might be seen as that !
But it does make a lot of sense imo.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2019)

Backache said:



			I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc.  WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.
		
Click to expand...

Do you really think the role of the queen in regards politics is anything more than ceremonial these days and itâ€™s the same with being the head of the armed forces. That wonâ€™t change when Charles steps up then William - they arenâ€™t going to do anything to rock the boat - even though at times I suspect of lot of people wished our current head of state might have stopped the current PM


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			It might be seen as that !
But it does make a lot of sense imo.
		
Click to expand...

I half agree with being able to connect with the younger generation. I know I felt in my last few years at work it was getting harder to create that connection and a synergy with the younger generation. However, bearing in mind how succession occurs, how do you establish the right criteria for when to takeover? Do you pick an arbitrary date and say all monarchs should retire at x age? What happens if you've got one that's totally switched on, or one that loses life's thread at 60? If you're going to go down the route of retiring them do you do it with a competency test, like the US President is supposed to undergo?

You could switch it around and say when the next in-line reaches 40??? they step in. But what happens if they are rubbish at 40? There is no ideal time to either step down or step up. Is 93 too old? Is 60 too old?

I don't think I can pick the right time, but I would say that a decent PM would guide the monarch... oh well, never mind. And where are we now with proroguing


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 28, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you really think the role of the queen in regards politics is anything more than ceremonial these days and itâ€™s the same with being the head of the armed forces. That wonâ€™t change when Charles steps up then William - they arenâ€™t going to do anything to rock the boat - *even though at times I suspect of lot of people wished our current head of state might have stopped the current PM*

Click to expand...

And a lot prefer her not to.  I guess that's your personal opinion, why not just say so or is it a joke ðŸ™„


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I half agree with being able to connect with the younger generation. I know I felt in my last few years at work it was getting harder to create that connection and a synergy with the younger generation. However, bearing in mind how succession occurs, how do you establish the right criteria for when to takeover? Do you pick an arbitrary date and say all monarchs should retire at x age? What happens if you've got one that's totally switched on, or one that loses life's thread at 60? If you're going to go down the route of retiring them do you do it with a competency test, like the US President is supposed to undergo?

You could switch it around and say when the next in-line reaches 40??? they step in. But what happens if they are rubbish at 40? There is no ideal time to either step down or step up. Is 93 too old? Is 60 too old?

I don't think I can pick the right time, but I would say that a decent PM would guide the monarch... oh well, never mind. And where are we now with proroguing

Click to expand...

Its so difficult to set a rule for them to retire. It seemed to me the time for the Queen was when her Mother died so that Charles could take over before he was too old.    As an arbitiry number I would suggest 70 was a reasonable age to consider, this would have given Charles 20 years and  William around 40..


----------



## User62651 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			The Monarch is the head of the Armed Forces, therefore forever linked. Youâ€™re welcome

Click to expand...

Armed forces number 190,000 or so including reservists, in a country of 67 million that's around 0.3%. Just saying.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I half agree with being able to connect with the younger generation. I know I felt in my last few years at work it was getting harder to create that connection and a synergy with the younger generation. However, bearing in mind how succession occurs, how do you establish the right criteria for when to takeover? Do you pick an arbitrary date and say all monarchs should retire at x age? What happens if you've got one that's totally switched on, or one that loses life's thread at 60? If you're going to go down the route of retiring them do you do it with a competency test, like the US President is supposed to undergo?

You could switch it around and say when the next in-line reaches 40??? they step in. But what happens if they are rubbish at 40? There is no ideal time to either step down or step up. Is 93 too old? Is 60 too old?

I don't think I can pick the right time, but I would say that a decent PM would guide the monarch... oh well, never mind. And where are we now with proroguing

Click to expand...

Not sure I just think the Monarch would be better out of politics altogether.
Itâ€™s just pomp and ceremony anyway .


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 29, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			Armed forces number 190,000 or so including reservists, in a country of 67 million that's around 0.3%. Just saying.
		
Click to expand...

Am sure theres a point to that but am not getting it ðŸ˜³


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Its so difficult to set a rule for them to retire. It seemed to me the time for the Queen was when her Mother died so that Charles could take over before he was too old.    As an arbitiry number I would suggest 70 was a reasonable age to consider, this would have given Charles 20 years and  William around 40..
		
Click to expand...

You're setting a number against a specific scenario. That number will, in all probability, not work for the next generation of Royals. Rather than it be an arbitrary number, why not have a competency test. At least that way the person is employed based on their ability to do the job, rather than an ability to live a long time.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			You're setting a number against a specific scenario. That number will, in all probability, not work for the next generation of Royals. Rather than it be an arbitrary number, why not have a competency test. At least that way the person is employed based on their ability to do the job, rather than an ability to live a long time.
		
Click to expand...

I'd rather see a number placed on the term of office for MPs than the monarch.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 29, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			I'd rather see a number placed on the term of office for MPs than the monarch.
		
Click to expand...

There already is, 5 years, then they get put up for re-election ðŸ‘


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 29, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			There already is, 5 years, then they get put up for re-election ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

Yes but I would only let them serve a max of 4 x5 year terms.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc.  WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.
		
Click to expand...

We do not have a UK constitution, that is why we always seem to be in such a mucking fuddle.
Now would be a good time to wipe the slate clean with politics, the HoL, the honours system and the Monarchy. Time to press the re-set button.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 29, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			Yes but I would only let them serve a max of 4 x5 year terms.
		
Click to expand...

Well thatâ€™s up to the electorate.

Letâ€™s think that through properly.

If you are limiting the career of an MP to 20 years, who are you going to get to do the job. Do you get young people in at 20 and kick them out at 40?
What do they do next in life? 
Or do you get people aged 40+ who have life experience, but who are out of touch with the younger generation?

I agree some of the current MPs are a shower, but the only way to deal with it is an election.

In a perfect world we would have the emergence of a new broad centrist party, which would attract support from far and wide........oh yes, like that one Chukka and Anna Soubery started, ......that went well


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			You're setting a number against a specific scenario. That number will, in all probability, not work for the next generation of Royals. Rather than it be an arbitrary number, why not have a competency test. At least that way the person is employed based on their ability to do the job, rather than an ability to live a long time.
		
Click to expand...

Not really, I am just setting a suggested number of 70, maybe it should be normal retirement age.  I am not a big proponent of the monarchy but it seems silly to me that Elizabeth is still on the throne while charles is 71.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Without resorting to an argument, don't you think that's ageist? There's younger ones amongst the Royals, e.g. Andrew, who'd be my last choice and then some to be monarch, and he's way younger than the Queen or Charles but him, no way on God's earth.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if recognising the fact that sthe same person age 93 is likely to have less cognition than when they were 60 is ageist if so then yes I am . Would it be the ageist if I said that someone age 93 is likely to be able to hit a golf ball less far than when they were 60?

Does the fact that someone who was second in line to the throne and is still within reach of the throne is your last choice for monarch not give you some cause for concern with the institution of hereditary head of state?


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you really think the role of the queen in regards politics is anything more than ceremonial these days and itâ€™s the same with being the head of the armed forces. That wonâ€™t change when Charles steps up then William - they arenâ€™t going to do anything to rock the boat - even though at times I suspect of lot of people wished our current head of state might have stopped the current PM
		
Click to expand...

The actual powers that the monarch has are rather more than ceremonial whether or not they choose to exercise those powers is of course up to them. My point is that as a country we probably need someone other than the prime minister capable of exercising some power including appointment of prime ministers and how parliament can sit etc. I believe that person would be better elected in some form rather than being hereditary.
One could still have a monarch if it was so desired but we rather need someone who can exercise the powers that currently reside with the monarch, rather than someone who is there just to dress up.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We do not have a UK constitution, that is why we always seem to be in such a mucking fuddle.
Now would be a good time to wipe the slate clean with politics, the HoL, the honours system and the Monarchy. Time to press the re-set button.
		
Click to expand...

We do have a constitution but it is not very well defined and is unwritten, the Queen is a constitutional monarch .
But I basically agree with your post that we need to reform and define it .


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			I'm not sure if recognising the fact that sthe same person age 93 is likely to have less cognition than when they were 60 is ageist if so then yes I am . Would it be the ageist if I said that someone age 93 is likely to be able to hit a golf ball less far than when they were 60?

Does the fact that someone who was second in line to the throne and is still within reach of the throne is your last choice for monarch not give you some cause for concern with the institution of hereditary head of state?
		
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that someone at 93 might have less cognitive capability than when they were 60 but that doesn't mean they are incapable, only less capable than they were but could still be capable of doing the job. And Andrew isn't second in line for the throne. Its William, followed by George and then his sister.

As for the golf ball analogy; not hitting it as far doesn't mean they can't hit it, and that they can't compete. When they can no longer hit it, then they can't do the job.

You're choosing based on age, not ability to achieve a certain, competent level. That's discrimination.

In a later post, you might have seen I suggested a competency test. If they're good enough, they get the job, or keep it, irrespective of age. Why sack someone just because they're old?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			The actual powers that the monarch has are rather more than ceremonial whether or not they choose to exercise those powers is of course up to them. My point is that as a country we probably need someone other than the prime minister capable of exercising some power including appointment of prime ministers and how parliament can sit etc. I believe that person would be better elected in some form rather than being hereditary.
One could still have a monarch if it was so desired but we rather need someone who can exercise the powers that currently reside with the monarch, rather than someone who is there just to dress up.
		
Click to expand...

So who else other than the Prime Minister should have power ? Not one single person really has that much power in the UK - there are committees and cabinets etc 

Do we really want a monarch who can overrule the government? Is that creeping into dictatorship ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			We do have a constitution but it is not very well defined and is unwritten, the Queen is a constitutional monarch .
But I basically agree with your post that we need to reform and define it .
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but an unwritten constitution aint worth the paper it is...â€¦...oh well


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So who else other than the Prime Minister should have power ? Not one single person really has that much power in the UK - there are committees and cabinets etc 

Do we really want a monarch who can overrule the government? Is that creeping into dictatorship ?
		
Click to expand...

They are normally called Presedents but not necessaraly dictatorships.


----------



## Grant85 (Sep 29, 2019)

Personally nothing against the people in the Royal Family but no person should be born into so much privilege, allowed to inherit so much free of inheritance tax and receive a reasonably comfortable and risk free lifestyle, income & residence courtesy of the tax payer. 

We are probably fortunate that the current main Royals are generally dutiful and take their roles seriously, but clearly there is no guarantee this will always be the case. I'm fairly sure the Queens sister had a good ole time that wouldn't have stood up to much scrutiny these days.   

We also hear often how the Royals generate so much for the economy (the London economy at least)... well plenty of people visit the Palace of Versailles in Paris, despite there having been no Royal Family there for a few centuries. I'm sure Buckingham Palace would earn far more revenue as a tourist attraction where people would pay a tenner to have a walk around, view the art collection & jewels and buy some memorobillia. No doubt plenty of businesses would also hire some it for functions etc. Same goes for the various other residencies scattered around London that could earn millions for the taxpayer if managed effectively. 

And don't get me started on the national anthem... religion and royalty - two hilariously outdated concepts that have no place trying to represent an entire country.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I don't dispute that someone at 93 might have less cognitive capability than when they were 60 but that doesn't mean they are incapable, only less capable than they were but could still be capable of doing the job. And Andrew isn't second in line for the throne. Its William, followed by George and then his sister.

As for the golf ball analogy; not hitting it as far doesn't mean they can't hit it, and that they can't compete. When they can no longer hit it, then they can't do the job.

You're choosing based on age, not ability to achieve a certain, competent level. That's discrimination.

In a later post, you might have seen I suggested a competency test. If they're good enough, they get the job, or keep it, irrespective of age. Why sack someone just because they're old?
		
Click to expand...

Firstly I didn't say Andrew *is* second in line I said he *was*, and he is still in line.

I have not suggested we should sack the Queen based on age, I am suggesting that at her age it is unlikely that she still has the mental flexibility to make decisions that are frequently required by most heads of State. If you are suggesting a formal test of her cognitive abilities I would not demur.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So who else other than the Prime Minister should have power ? Not one single person really has that much power in the UK - there are committees and cabinets etc

Do we really want a monarch who can overrule the government? Is that creeping into dictatorship ?
		
Click to expand...

Actually the Prime minister does have n awful lot of power in the UK. more within the country than the President of the USA. I am not suggesting that the Monarch should over rule government I do think that having someone with the powers that the monarch has and is more democratically accountable would help avoid the concentration of power that can aid tyrants.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Sorry, but an unwritten constitution aint worth the paper it is...â€¦...oh well

Click to expand...

A personal opinion is that an unwritten constitution is not valueless but is probably less good ., But either written or unwritten constitutions require healthy functioning structures and institutions to support them and many of ours have weakened over the years particularly the second chamber and the party political system with it's now rather narrow and factional membership and we need an overhaul and this should include a review of the role of the monarch.


----------



## User62651 (Sep 29, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Am sure theres a point to that but am not getting it ðŸ˜³
		
Click to expand...

A point was made about monarchy and it's close ties to armed forces and somehow that made it more relevant to whether a monarchy is still required, I merely offered a stat to indicate that relative to population armed forces are relative small part of civil service and are no more or no less important than any other jobs. It's a career choice (since national service ceased) and whilst it is an important job I don't see why Monarchy is needed for the armed forces to function, when they function perfectly well in many republics too. Nothing more.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			You're choosing based on age, not ability to achieve a certain, competent level. That's discrimination.
		
Click to expand...

By the way would discounting George on grounds of age also be discrimination?
Personally I would not want either as active head of state on age grounds.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			Actually the Prime minister does have n awful lot of power in the UK. more within the country than the President of the USA. I am not suggesting that the Monarch should over rule government *I do think that having someone with the powers that the monarch has and is more democratically accountable would help avoid the concentration of power that can aid tyrants.*

Click to expand...

But we donâ€™t have a concentration of power  -and how do you choose someone and give them the power over the government? What if that one person is a tyrant ?


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But we donâ€™t have a concentration of power  -and how do you choose someone and give them the power over the government? What if that one person is a tyrant ?
		
Click to expand...

You do not concentrate the power in that one person ,. They can have some powers to regulate what the PM does they do not take all his powers. 
Power in the US as an example is more shared between Congress, the Senate, the Supreme court and the president.
The Queen nominally has some powers of appointing PM's and agreeing to suspension of Parliament or otherwise . Understandably she is loath to use them. I believe we need  someone democratically accountable who has those powers and may at time use them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			You do not concentrate the power in that one person ,. They can have some powers to regulate what the PM does they do not take all his powers.
Power in the US as an example is more shared between Congress, the Senate, the Supreme court and the president.
The Queen nominally has some powers of appointing PM's and agreeing to suspension of Parliament or otherwise . Understandably she is loath to use them. I believe we need  someone democratically accountable who has those powers and may at time use them.
		
Click to expand...

We have the HoC and the House of Lords - 

Do you really want someone who can stop a PM from being appointed? And how do you pick that someone


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 29, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



*A point was made about monarchy and it's close ties to armed forces and somehow that made it more relevant to whether a monarchy is still required,* I merely offered a stat to indicate that relative to population armed forces are relative small part of civil service and are no more or no less important than any other jobs. It's a career choice (since national service ceased) and whilst it is an important job I don't see why Monarchy is needed for the armed forces to function, when they function perfectly well in many republics too. Nothing more.
		
Click to expand...

Re the bit in bold, apologies if I confused you but my post was merely in response to Doon asking for the thread to get back on track, I posted what I did as a reason why the thread had evolved on to the Armed Forces.
I didnâ€™t intend it to have any other justification or deeper meaning.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We have the HoC and the House of Lords -

Do you really want someone who can stop a PM from being appointed? And how do you pick that someone
		
Click to expand...

Our HOL is unelected and in equal need of reform. I would elect someone to be head of State or have those duties if we retain the Queen as nominal head of state..
We don't even elect our own PM the Queen chooses someone who she thinks will be acceptable to the House of Commons, they are effectively chosen by party political members and activists.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			Our HOL is unelected and in equal need of reform. I would elect someone to be head of State or have those duties if we retain the Queen as nominal head of state..
We don't even elect our own PM the Queen chooses someone who she thinks will be acceptable to the House of Commons, they are effectively chosen by party political members and activists.
		
Click to expand...

We elect the party and the leader of that party is PM . 

So the public pick one person to be head of state ?! Have you seen the state of our self serving politicians? - I could think of anything worse for us right now because itâ€™s near on impossible to get someone neutral


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We elect the party and the leader of that party is PM . 

So the public pick one person to be head of state ?! Have you seen the state of our self serving politicians? - I could think of anything worse for us right now because itâ€™s near on impossible to get someone neutral
		
Click to expand...

What about John Bercow? He's totally independent and neutral. ;-)


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We elect the party and the leader of that party is PM .

So the public pick one person to be head of state ?! Have you seen the state of our self serving politicians? - I could think of anything worse for us right now because itâ€™s near on impossible to get someone neutral
		
Click to expand...

Actually we don't elect a party we elect individual MP's who generaly represent parties and the Queen chooses the leader of the majority party generaly . However if we don't have a majority party the system becomes more clouded and judgement is called for I believe we need someone who is seperatly elected to serve that purpose rather than a perfectly pleasant nonagenarian chosen by hereditary accident


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 29, 2019)

Backache said:



			Actually we don't elect a party we elect individual MP's who generaly represent parties and the Queen chooses the leader of the majority party generaly . However if we don't have a majority party the system becomes more clouded and judgement is called for I believe we need someone who is seperatly elected to serve that purpose rather than a perfectly pleasant nonagenarian chosen by hereditary accident
		
Click to expand...

So how do you elect someone who is neutral ? It seems a very unworkable suggestion and add in another level of authority and control thatâ€™s not needed. We vote for local councils and governments - thatâ€™s it , the queen etc is all ceremonial and there is no need for that to be anything more regardless of what power she has . 

What need is there to bring in one person to appoint PM etc - what happens if the political party donâ€™t want him or itâ€™s not someone the public want ?


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 29, 2019)

You run a reality tv prog, and the winner of love island big brother in the jungle dancing gets to be King/Queen for a year?


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So how do you elect someone who is neutral ? It seems a very unworkable suggestion and add in another level of authority and control thatâ€™s not needed. We vote for local councils and governments - thatâ€™s it , the queen etc is all ceremonial and there is no need for that to be anything more regardless of what power she has .

What need is there to bring in one person to appoint PM etc - what happens if the political party donâ€™t want him or itâ€™s not someone the public want ?
		
Click to expand...

If ther is no need the Queen is completely obsolete , as it is there is sometimes a need and potentially will be again.
You do not have to have someone who is neutral, you have someone whose declared duty is to be neutral and run them on a different electoral cycle to parliament.


----------



## stefanovic (Sep 30, 2019)

The Windsors or Saxe Coburgs, or whatever they are called, arguably shouldn't be there at all. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th_Earl_of_Loudoun

Has any group of people had more luck?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 30, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			You run a reality tv prog, and the winner of love island big brother in the jungle dancing gets to be King/Queen for a year?
		
Click to expand...

Or perhaps like _The Circle _when the contestants never actually meet or see each other - but each builds and publishes through 'social media' (The Circle) a picture of themself, their personality, likes and beliefs - a picture that they hope will make then the most popular and so win the competition. 

And they can choose to be whoever they want to be - can be any age, sex or sexual orientation that they think will work with the others, and can build a picture that they might not actually believe in whatsoever - but if it wins the game for them - then job done (actually - see Boris Johnson).


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 2, 2019)

Posted this on the wrong thread 

But this shows to me how more in touch with the modern world the two Princes are 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1190607698821181440


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 2, 2019)

lots of posts deleted and Points have been given for bad language and a member given a 7 day holiday from the forum.

I know itâ€™s raining and you canâ€™t play golf and we lost the World Cup, but for gods sake ..........


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 2, 2019)

Rob from the rich and give to the poor, Robin Hood or RobintheHood


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 2, 2019)

williamalex1 said:



			Rob from the rich and give to the poor, Robin Hood or RobintheHood 

Click to expand...

Ha ha was nothing to do with me ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 2, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			lots of posts deleted and Points have been given for bad language and a member given a 7 day holiday from the forum.

I know itâ€™s raining and you canâ€™t play golf and we lost the World Cup, but for gods sake ..........
		
Click to expand...

Unbelievable, I always miss out on the threads that get tasty and people throw their toys out of the pram. You should set up a forum premium subscription that gives you unfiltered access to all the posts where people start effing and jeffing. 

And of all the threads it's one about the royalty. I mean what was the beef about, whether Olivia Colman is a better Queen Elizabeth than Clarie Foy?  Whether Prince Charles is taking advantage of the his connections to sell Dutchy Originals products merchandise at vastly inflate prices??  Did God save the Queen by The Sex Pistols really out sell Rod Stewart in the silver jubilee charts and should have been number one that week or is that just an urban myth?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Unbelievable, I always miss out on the threads that get tasty and people throw their toys out of the pram. You should set up a forum premium subscription that gives you unfiltered access to all the posts where people start effing and jeffing.

And of all the threads it's one about the royalty. I mean what was the beef about, whether Olivia Colman is a better Queen Elizabeth than Clarie Foy?  Whether Prince Charles is taking advantage of the his connections to sell Dutchy Originals products merchandise at vastly inflate prices??  Did God save the Queen by The Sex Pistols really out sell Rod Stewart in the silver jubilee charts and should have been number one that week or is that just an urban myth?
		
Click to expand...

A poster who adds nothing to a thread, simply took the p!ss out of LP in response to Post #194, another poster then came on and told the t.... a few home truths, unfortunately he also called him a word that rhymed with anchor.


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Unbelievable, I always miss out on the threads that get tasty and people throw their toys out of the pram. You should set up a forum premium subscription that gives you unfiltered access to all the posts where people start effing and jeffing.  And of all the threads it's one about the royalty. I mean what was the beef about, whether Olivia Colman is a better Queen Elizabeth than Clarie Foy?  Whether Prince Charles taking advantage of the his connections to sell Dutchy Originals products merchandise at vastly inflate prices??
		
Click to expand...

You never missed anything other than LP made the above post, his stalker (instigator) made another snide comment, Pieman (offender) questions said instigator, makes a fair comment to instigator which included a compliment That sounds like â€œanchorâ€ ðŸ˜‰ In fairness to Pieman he did apologise  but ended up being banned ðŸ¤·â€â™‚ï¸


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 2, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			A poster who adds nothing to a thread, simply took the p!ss out of LP in response to Post #194, another poster then came on and told the *t....* a few home truths, unfortunately he also called him a word that rhymed with anchor.
		
Click to expand...

I love this game, Iâ€™ll have a â€˜wâ€™ please Bob......


----------



## drdel (Nov 2, 2019)

I guess its just boils down to wanting the potential advantage and stability of a Monarchy / Kingdom or would live in a Republic - purely subjective so great for an argument !


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 2, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			I love this game, Iâ€™ll have a â€˜wâ€™ please Bob......
		
Click to expand...

Oh, oh, oh me next, me next... is it an "I"


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 2, 2019)

Iâ€™ll have â€œPâ€ please..........


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 2, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Iâ€™ll have â€œPâ€ please..........

Click to expand...

ðŸ™„ðŸ™„ Youâ€™re the host yer knob, you canâ€™t pick....

Is mine and Briâ€™s right?ðŸ˜‰


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 2, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			ðŸ™„ðŸ™„ Youâ€™re the host yer knob, you canâ€™t pick....
		
Click to expand...

I donâ€™t want to be Bob, I want to ask for a â€œPâ€


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 2, 2019)

I would like them all binned but I cant think of who to replace them with.  Ant and Dec might be available though.


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 2, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I donâ€™t want to be Bob, I want to ask for a â€œPâ€
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m out....You deserve a ban ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 2, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			You never missed anything other than LP made the above post, his stalker (instigator) made another snide comment, Pieman (offender) questions said instigator, makes a fair comment to instigator which included a compliment That sounds like â€œanchorâ€ ðŸ˜‰ In fairness to Pieman he did apologise  but ended up being banned ðŸ¤·â€â™‚ï¸
		
Click to expand...

Wow, it makes the fall outs my 13 your old daughter has with her friends sound like the Irish Peace Process in comparison.


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Wow, it makes the fall outs my 13 your old daughter has with her friends sound like the Irish Peace Process in comparison.
		
Click to expand...

A ban was a bit OTT imo, but rules are rules ðŸ¤·â€â™‚ï¸


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 2, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			A ban was a bit OTT imo, but rules are rules ðŸ¤·â€â™‚ï¸
		
Click to expand...

I think people should be banned for using the word Knob.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 2, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			You never missed anything other than LP made the above post, his stalker (instigator) made another snide comment, Pieman (offender) questions said instigator, makes a fair comment to instigator which included a compliment That sounds like â€œanchorâ€ ðŸ˜‰ In fairness to Pieman he did apologise  but ended up being banned ðŸ¤·â€â™‚ï¸
		
Click to expand...


Pieman wasnâ€™t banned

Thread closed


----------

