Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding' (or

> the royal anything) should surely be left to do so

> - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.


We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we? Security costs to public purse estimated at approximately ?30M.

kibris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why don't we all just watch the FA CUP FINAL more

> fun in that than from these people that just take

> our money


William is making a mad dash to be at the FA Cup final according to the Express

Potential for a missed speech I'm sure


https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/949435/royal-wedding-latest-prince-william-attend-FA-Cup-Final


I love that for us plebs - the last paragraph states pubs will be open longer.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.


Ditto the 2012 Olympics. Some people's bread and circuses are royalty, some are elite sports. I couldn't be a*sed with either but I'm not decrying others for their choices.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.


Exactly. It seems that it?s ok for the struggling person on the street to be paying towards the wedding of one of the many hangers, yet we can?t afford to give Doctors, Nurses and others pay rises. I think it?s shocking.


This guy isn?t even first in line to the throne. They perform nothing but ceremonial BS. We have it shoved down our throats by the media, and the best thing we are offered in response is the so called privilege to watch this circus without a tv licence. Pathetic.


Louisa.

Maybe the royal wedding could be sponsored or product placement used.


I noted impressively that when singing 'we're in the money' the CEO of Sainsbury's picked up a cup of Nero's coffee (Isn't Starbucks the Sainsburys partner) :)


Edit: The UK sites have cut out the 'product placement' - but the Irish ones haven't LOL

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".



eat your peas, people in Africa would love to have a plate of peas like yours. be thankful for your peas.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".



It?s not just about them being ?freeloaders? though is it? It?s about what they represent. Unelected privilege. Unlike our elected representatives, these people are not held accountable for anything.


Louisa.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?


They?re singled out for the reasons I explained. They are in a position of privilege as a birth right rather than a democratic right. You can?t solve inequality when people like them are given access to state funds to pay for security towards their weddding. You think it?s fair that people are going to food banks and struggling to pay the bills, whilst these wealthy aristocrats are flaunting their state funded wedding on state funded television? It?s just absurd in the 21st century.


Louisa.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?


Nope. Be a start though. How can you ever hope to have true equality in a country where the head of state is selected through an accident of birth, paid a fortune and treated by the majority of politicians and media as akin to a deity? It heavily reinforces the concept that each has their allotted place.

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RH, you can never have true equality in society as

> it just does not work like that. You always have

> to have those that rule and teach and, likewise,

> you have to have those that learn, submit and

> obey. Simple, really.


What a depressing worldview. Might as well chuck it all in and go back to feudalism then, eh?


You will always, it is true, have those who lead and those who follow. That doesn't have to imply the totalitarian "ruling" and "obeying" and "submitting", and most importantly who leads and who follows can be predicated on ability, desire and work ethic rather than accidents of birth and whose many times great grandad was best at nicking land and goods off others a thousand years ago.

RH, you're quite right regarding "ability, desire, work ethic" etc, but that is surely to do with equality of opportunity, which I wholeheartedly endorse, rather than actual bona fide equality. Most have to obey and there are those that decide/ tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it necessarily follows some are ruling and others are submitting. If society did not work in this way, then surely there would be anarchy and no society? (Setting aside what Thatcher said!!).

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Most have to obey and there are those that decide/

> tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it

> necessarily follows some are ruling and others are

> submitting.


Somewhat discounting the role of an elected legislature there, aren't you?

And the fact that everyone, including the 'lawmakers', is subject to the same laws once they're in force. Ditto rulers - that was the point of Magna Carta, which is still what many Brits recognise as the basis of this country's constitution.

micromacromonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually Harry did serve on the front line for his

> country, so that certainly makes him the most

> deserving member of his parasitic family.


So apparently did Patrick, the homeless guy in the wheelchair who was sheltering in the doorway of the Grove Tavern before they boarded it up to force him out.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...