Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

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

    • The voters in these redwall seats all complain of a broken Britain etc etc - yet see no connection between the  country voting tory for 14 years and those towns voting for Brexit despite being warned it would lead to problems - they just moan about everything - often quite correctly (services are expensive or being cut, roads are a state, housing is expensive etc etc) but when you ask them when things were better.. well the answer is either    a) under a labour government when we part of the EU or b) some fictional Facebook sepia tinted picture of Britain "when you could leave your front door open, we didn't know how lucky we were" Voters say they want the truth but when someone sane (if dull and sometimes wrong) gets into power and says "lads, things are worse than we realised" they bleat about a lack of instant fixes and say it's wrong to keep blaming the last government (despite the lie about Labour crashing the economy in 2008 STILL being a stick labour get beaten with in 2025) as for rejoining the EU - the barriers are immense - you have a press and a large portion of teh population that will behave just abysmally. You have an electorate that recognises the mistake but is all very English and "made out beds, mustn't grumble" etc etc - no backbone. And you have an opposition party (or two) that is plain bonkers and when labour do lose power they would renege/reverse any progress made in matters EU in seconds Meanwhile EU countries can see all this clearly and have no incentive to engage until this country grows up and is able to demonstrate they won't act hysterically when reintegration starts
    • This is an extract from an edition with Dave Walker, mediator extraordinaire, born at the Elephant & Castle and still living in Southwark. One of his great achievements is training young people to be peer mediators ... who even step in to work with disputing adults! Just shows what can be achieved and who can achieve it. Pretty much anyone and everyone.  Next week we publish a special edition with Jo Berry who has very powerful story to tell. Further more, there was an invited audience of local people young and old, with whom she engaged in open discussion for an hour. Insights galore!
    • Yes, given the clear (and predictable) failure of Brexit, all the negative effects, and the overwhelming proportion of people agreeing that it has failed, I really can't understand why Labour have gone down the "making it work" road. But then I have no idea of what reversing some or all of it might involve. Also, Reform don't mention Brexit much, do they? If at all.  They push other aspects of what they say they stand for. So the people inclined to vote for them have probably completely forgotten they were ever associated with Brexit.
    • Latest news from the sunlit uplands, on the same day the UK economy 'unexpectedly' shrank 0.1%... As an aside, the cognitive dissonance shown by large parts of the UK electorate over Brexit is quite a thing to behold. I don't think it's controversial to say that Brexit is now considered by a large % of the population to have failed, with the % who see it as a success in single figures. Yet, initial polling for the upcoming Runcorn by-election shows Reform winning what is a relatively safe Labour seat. Now I get protest votes and all that, but Reform were literally the Brexit Party before the rebrand. If there's such a large consensus that Brexit failed, why would so many even consider voting for a party that actively helped deliver Brexit and all the known economic damage it would cause? And that's before you even get to the fantasy economics it presented at the last General Election. Labour haven't helped themselves either, by pursuing a nonsensical 'We can make Brexit work' approach, they have in effect made themselves impotent when it comes to attacking Reform and what they stand for...
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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