East Dulwich Jubilee Street Parties

[Spartacus]

Are there any street parties being planned for the June Bank Holiday

I know we've got the gala on, but is there anything either as individual streets or a combined larger celebration planned ?

[ab29]

From my perspective, there is nothing to celebrate 🤔

[KidKruger]

I think locally-organised street parties are great fun.

The excuse to hold one - who cares ?!

[Spartacus]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I think locally-organised street parties are great

> fun.

> The excuse to hold one - who cares ?!

As was said in Bill and Ted

Party on Dude

[BrandNewGuy]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I think locally-organised street parties are great

> fun.

> The excuse to hold one - who cares ?!

Spot on. I don't believe in Jesus, either, but it doesn't stop me celebrating Christmas. Loved the golden jubilee street party when the kids were small. Brought the TV out into the front garden to watch the World Cup at the same time :)

[KidKruger]

Well BNG - I hope we live on the same street !! 🤣

[DulwichFox]

Still have my badge somewhere..

Collectors item

[Angelina]

We have one and our next road does as well.

I like Queen Elizabeth, not that I care for anyone else?s in her family though.

I?ll be making cakes and food and talking to people I live near but rarely see. Sounds perfect.

[James Barber]

Hope lots of street parties to celebrate a four day weekend 2-5 June take place.

They're easy to organise and Southwark make the legal requirements clear here - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/events-culture-and-heritage/events/planning-an-event/street-parties but you have to have applied 6 weeks before hand so on or before 21 April. So do get cracking.

I've just finished "...And What Do You Do ? - wWhat the Royal Family Don't Want You to Know" by Norman Baker. Every royal is tax avoiding, dodgy expense claiming in ways that you or I would at best be sacked for gross misconduct but more likely charged for criminal offences.

Hard to celebrate such scrounging from ALL the royals. But celebrating a long weekend with neighbours and friends I do get.

[Artemis]

I find that rather a distasteful post to make on the day of the Duke of Edinburgh?s memorial service. Perhaps many consider that the 95 year old Queen, who is unwell but has continued to serve the country at an age when most women of her age retired 35 years ago, deserves a bit of respect today, whatever your own views. I would not choose the day of a family member?s memorial service to make a public attack on that family, whatever my own views.

[Penguin68]

Every royal is tax avoiding, dodgy expense claiming in ways that you or I would at best be sacked for gross misconduct but more likely charged for criminal offences.

Hard to celebrate such scrounging from ALL the royals.

The Royal Family, famously (other than the Sussexes) do not sure for defamation - so such assertions can be made willy-nilly. In fact very few now get state funding (other than the costs of state visits) most are funded by the Queen from her own income and from State Money she does get. Her age and infirmity mean, of course, that she undertakes far less now than she used to, so placing the burden on her immediate family.

The Royal Family are hardly unique in avoiding tax - most people do - claiming allowances when they can etc. and ensuring that they act tax-appropriately. This is very different from tax evasion - which is a criminal offence. I am not sure how the author has access to private expenses claims made by members of the Royal Family - those that are in the public domain - associated with public duties - will have been paid openly, and would have been open to challenge.

The 'expenses' allowed to lower ranking employees in any firm are frequently the subject of rules which are not applied to e.g. board members - most of whom, for instance, operate with very different rules of travel and e.g. hotel costs than ordinary grunts.

This is a nasty book published with the knowledge that the writer will go unpursued in the courts for defamation. That it is so warmly endorsed by a former councillor and parliamentary candidate for what used to be a respectable party saddens me. Republicans can be pleasant of course, and philosophically argue for a different constitution, but I think you will find that Presidents (Putin, Trump ...?) can be rather more venal and unpleasant than the Heads of State we are lumbered with. Republicans (other perhaps than some US Republicans) don't have to be nasty.

[JohnL]

I'm not sure the Queen checks out the EDF :)

But then ?

[rjsmall]

I guess when it comes to dodgy expense claims, a former MP (Norman Baker) probably has the inside track. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5315118/Campaigning-Norman-Baker-MP-claimed-for-a-new-bicycle-and-broadband-MPs-expenses.html)

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Artemis Wrote:

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

> I find that rather a distasteful post to make on

> the day of the Duke of Edinburgh?s memorial

> service. Perhaps many consider that the 95 year

> old Queen, who is unwell but has continued to

> serve the country at an age when most women of her

> age retired 35 years ago, deserves a bit of

> respect today

I find it rather distasteful that we privilege one 95 year old lady to live in a Palace in the middle of London and wear a magic hat and wave a magic wand studded with stones produced by slaves...but you know, it's all a matter of taste.

The current Queen seems a nice enough lady individually and you're right that it's bonkers that she feels obliged to keep pegging along. I'd pay tribute to her service by ensuring that no-one else feels trapped in her position by disestablishing the monarchy.

[Nigello]

I suspect a president would be vain, empty and dull, and open to all sorts of biases and even influence or perhaps corruption. Our stock would fall globally and, like the heads of state of most countries where that person is not with political power, the president would be unknown, unloved snd uninspiring.

[Jenijenjen]

Agreed, but much would depend on how they're selected. Would it be a government appointee (horrors), chosen by a committee made up of a cross section of people or someone who everyone, including children, would be able to vote for. While there are well dodgy members of the royal family, as there are in all walks of life, as an institution that provides the head of state I don't mind it and find it preferable to the alternatives. As for the privilege, there's always going to be people much, much, much better of than me and I don't let that eat into my life though perhaps DKHB has a point regarding jewels mined by slaves.

[Nigello]

No more polls - the people who gain are those in and seeking power. Too many politicians and semi-demi similars (quangos etc.) Many people don?t vote and it?s likely that would be borne out in a presidential vote. Slim down the monarchy, have it take up more of a ?direction of travel? mode and leave be.

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

Many presidents are good and some bad. But you can vote them in and vote them out. Royals we get no choice.

2022 the queen receives ?86m from the state. All her formal expenses are paid on top. All the security is paid on top.

But I genuinely hope lots of streets take advantage of the four day weekend to hold street parties.

Regards James.

[Penguin68]

But you can vote them in and vote them out.

Until (e.g. Putin) they decide you can't. And Trump tried as well and might have got away with it. A constitutional monarch is a useful (and in almost all circumstances powerless) figurehead, in our case wholly non-divisive. Only an elected President on the Irish model (again virtually powerless) would offer an acceptable substitute. One necessary qualification for an acceptable President would be no membership (ever) of a political party and no history of (party) political engagement.