FA Cup Final or Royal Wedding?

[Hairy Canary 707]

There would only be a president Blair if the people wanted one and even then he could be kicked out.

King Charles the third however, is on his way whether you think he is a plant talking, toilet seat carrying wet muppet, or not. No choice, no option, no endorsement because the people''s view on the matter doesn''t count.

[Bill 1,788]

I suspect he will be named as King George rath than King Charles - too many bad associations.

Mind you he could be named after me

King Bigears

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]There would only be a president Blair if the people wanted one and even then he could be kicked out.

King Charles the third however, is on his way whether you think he is a plant talking, toilet seat carrying wet muppet, or not. No choice, no option, no endorsement because the people''s view on the matter doesn''t count.[/quote]

Whenever I think of Blair, I think of Iraq, the state murder of Dr David Kelly, Gadaffi and lots of other dirty shenanigans. Give me the Royals any day over corrupt lying politicians, lining their pockets and consorting with terrorists. 

[Bill 1,788]

David Kelly - there has been no proof of any of the claims

as to corruption might I add Prince Andrew

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,568]

Iwan’s Big Toe:

North Korea is a modern monarchy. Power is handed down without election from father to son. Just because they don’t call themselves ‘king’ doesn’t mean that is exactly what the Kims have created there...

Whether a country has a monachy or not has little impact on stopping an autocratic brutal regime. Many of the most brutal regiemes today and in modern history are carried out by ‘royals’. You only have to look at Japan at the beginning of the 20th century.

As I am a sane and rational person I know that the idea someone is ‘Head of State’ just because they were born into a certain family is an inherently silly and backwards idea. However, and maybe this is just due to the current state of the world, I don’t think I could handle any more politics and having an elected representative as head of state would just create more divisions and all the murky aspects of politics. While the UK wouldn’t have to go the route of America and place a huge amount of power in an individual’s hands of course.

I quite like the situation in Ireland. The Irish president is a largely ceremonial roll and given a long term so people can kind of forget about it once he or she is elected.

It will be interesting to see how committed to a Monachy the country remains when Charles becomes king and recent surveys suggest that more under 35s are pro-republic than pro-royal. I doubt we will see the removal of the monarch in Harry or William’s lifetime but whether Geroge’s child gets to be king/queen is more questionable. I do think that we need to reform the way the royals are given money and start to cut the minor royals of the tax payer gravy train. Also the profits from Duchy should all be given to the treasury as they are all made off state land.

[Hairy Canary 707]

[quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]There would only be a president Blair if the people wanted one and even then he could be kicked out.

King Charles the third however, is on his way whether you think he is a plant talking, toilet seat carrying wet muppet, or not. No choice, no option, no endorsement because the people''s view on the matter doesn''t count.[/quote]

Whenever I think of Blair, I think of Iraq, the state murder of Dr David Kelly, Gadaffi and lots of other dirty shenanigans. Give me the Royals any day over corrupt lying politicians, lining their pockets and consorting with terrorists. 

[/quote]

I totally agree Paul but I think you''re missing the point. Blair wouldn''t have a hope of getting elected now because we know what he really is. King Charles will be king whatever he is like as a person. We''ve had mad men and Hitler sympathisers on the throne before and if we get another then there is nothing we can do about it.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Bigears"]

David Kelly - there has been no proof of any of the claims

as to corruption might I add Prince Andrew

[/quote]

No proof, but denied an inquest and allowed a cover-up of state secrecy that lasts for 70 years.  No proof needed as it stinks.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]There would only be a president Blair if the people wanted one and even then he could be kicked out.

King Charles the third however, is on his way whether you think he is a plant talking, toilet seat carrying wet muppet, or not. No choice, no option, no endorsement because the people''s view on the matter doesn''t count.[/quote]

Whenever I think of Blair, I think of Iraq, the state murder of Dr David Kelly, Gadaffi and lots of other dirty shenanigans. Give me the Royals any day over corrupt lying politicians, lining their pockets and consorting with terrorists. 

[/quote]

I totally agree Paul but I think you''re missing the point. Blair wouldn''t have a hope of getting elected now because we know what he really is. King Charles will be king whatever he is like as a person. We''ve had mad men and Hitler sympathisers on the throne before and if we get another then there is nothing we can do about it.[/quote]

.. and you are missing the point.  Our monarchy serves only as a figurehead in our democratic state, merely rubber-stamping Parliamentary statute.  No way would I advocate us returning to a ruling monarchy, and neither is anybody else methinks. The monarchy is apolitical and for that reason will always be more popular than a political figure, but is also a massive draw for tourism into the country, and a figure of stability for the nation that the majority will always hopefully support.   

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="paul moy"]

.. and you are missing the point.  Our monarchy serves only as a figurehead in our democratic state, merely rubber-stamping Parliamentary statute.  No way would I advocate us returning to a ruling monarchy, and neither is anybody else methinks. The monarchy is apolitical and for that reason will always be more popular than a political figure, but is also a massive draw for tourism into the country, and a figure of stability for the nation that the majority will always hopefully support.   

[/quote]

The tourism line always gets wheeled out, but the castles would draw visitors without a monarchy, as the palace of Versailles does. To paraphrase Jonathan Pie in the video posted earlier in the thread - 413,000 went to Buckingham Palace in last year''s record breaking summer season. 2 Million people go to Chester Zoo annually, should we put a gibbon as the head of state based purely on tourism?

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Bigears"]

David Kelly - there has been no proof of any of the claims

as to corruption might I add Prince Andrew

[/quote]

No proof, but denied an inquest and allowed a cover-up of state secrecy that lasts for 70 years.  No proof needed as it stinks.

[/quote]

as usual the nutjobs back down from their silly claims once challenged

so it wasn''t "the state murder of Dr David Kelly" as you first claimed

in fact as you admit there was ''no proof''

he was NOt denied an inquest either - in fact there was a public enquiry which over road any inquest and the post mortem report was made public.

the enquiry was led by Lord Hutton and  "the evidence that was ordered to be held back for 70 years "Hutton claimed that he had done so to protect Kelly''s wife and daughters

from the distress of further media reports about the death, saying: "My

request was not a concealment of evidence because every matter of

relevance had been examined or was available for examination during the

public inquiry. There was no secrecy surrounding the postmortem report

because it had always been available for examination and questioning by

counsel representing the interested parties during the inquiry."

''The Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, considered the issue again

in March 2004. After reviewing evidence not presented to the Hutton

Inquiry, Gardiner decided there was no need for further investigation.''

so yet again a rightwing nut job sees no problem in peddling misinformation

quelle surprise !

[Van wink 2,994]

Loved the sermon from Micheal Curry, what a great message, something a few on here could learn from!🤡

[Bill 1,788]

Listening to a black man

.................. there''s a novelty for you brexiteers

[Van wink 2,994]

Hate the racism from Bigears.

[TIL 1010 4,784]

[quote user="Bigears"]

Listening to a black man

.................. there''s a novelty for you brexiteers

[/quote]

Good grief i cannot believe what i have just read.

[River End Canary 18]

[quote user="Van wink"]Hate the racism from Bigears.[/quote]

Hypocrite

[River End Canary 18]

Farke could learn a thing or 2 about tactics from meghan going up the isle

Straight up there no sideways or backwards walk just a to b in the most efficient way

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Chippy Minton"]Farke could learn a thing or 2 about tactics from meghan going up the isle

Straight up there no sideways or backwards walk just a to b in the most efficient way[/quote]  which isle would that be

Wight, Man ?

[Len 74]

[quote user="Bigears"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Bigears"]

David Kelly - there has been no proof of any of the claims

as to corruption might I add Prince Andrew

[/quote]

No proof, but denied an inquest and allowed a cover-up of state secrecy that lasts for 70 years.  No proof needed as it stinks.

[/quote]

as usual the nutjobs back down from their silly claims once challenged

so it wasn''t "the state murder of Dr David Kelly" as you first claimed

in fact as you admit there was ''no proof''

he was NOt denied an inquest either - in fact there was a public enquiry which over road any inquest and the post mortem report was made public.

the enquiry was led by Lord Hutton and  "the evidence that was ordered to be held back for 70 years "Hutton claimed that he had done so to protect Kelly''s wife and daughters

from the distress of further media reports about the death, saying: "My

request was not a concealment of evidence because every matter of

relevance had been examined or was available for examination during the

public inquiry. There was no secrecy surrounding the postmortem report

because it had always been available for examination and questioning by

counsel representing the interested parties during the inquiry."

''The Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, considered the issue again

in March 2004. After reviewing evidence not presented to the Hutton

Inquiry, Gardiner decided there was no need for further investigation.''

so yet again a rightwing nut job sees no problem in peddling misinformation

quelle surprise !

[/quote]You said there was no proof to any of the claims about Kelly''s death, then you label one side''s claims as misinformation. That''s a rather strange turn of logic, even by your own standards.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Len"][quote user="Bigears"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Bigears"]

David Kelly - there has been no proof of any of the claims

as to corruption might I add Prince Andrew

[/quote]

No proof, but denied an inquest and allowed a cover-up of state secrecy that lasts for 70 years.  No proof needed as it stinks.

[/quote]

as usual the nutjobs back down from their silly claims once challenged

so it wasn''t "the state murder of Dr David Kelly" as you first claimed

in fact as you admit there was ''no proof''

he was NOt denied an inquest either - in fact there was a public enquiry which over road any inquest and the post mortem report was made public.

the enquiry was led by Lord Hutton and  "the evidence that was ordered to be held back for 70 years "Hutton claimed that he had done so to protect Kelly''s wife and daughters

from the distress of further media reports about the death, saying: "My

request was not a concealment of evidence because every matter of

relevance had been examined or was available for examination during the

public inquiry. There was no secrecy surrounding the postmortem report

because it had always been available for examination and questioning by

counsel representing the interested parties during the inquiry."

''The Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, considered the issue again

in March 2004. After reviewing evidence not presented to the Hutton

Inquiry, Gardiner decided there was no need for further investigation.''

so yet again a rightwing nut job sees no problem in peddling misinformation

quelle surprise !

[/quote]You said there was no proof to any of the claims about Kelly''s death, then you label one side''s claims as misinformation. That''s a rather strange turn of logic, even by your own standards.

[/quote]

no that is you on other one of your flying saucers, 7ft unicorns rambles

[Bill 1,788]

Away from ''loony'' Len

we have this (worth a minute of your time)

https://youtu.be/UdwBusuCpms

[Len 74]

[quote user="Bigears"][quote user="Len"][quote user="Bigears"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Bigears"]

David Kelly - there has been no proof of any of the claims

as to corruption might I add Prince Andrew

[/quote]

No proof, but denied an inquest and allowed a cover-up of state secrecy that lasts for 70 years.  No proof needed as it stinks.

[/quote]

as usual the nutjobs back down from their silly claims once challenged

so it wasn''t "the state murder of Dr David Kelly" as you first claimed

in fact as you admit there was ''no proof''

he was NOt denied an inquest either - in fact there was a public enquiry which over road any inquest and the post mortem report was made public.

the enquiry was led by Lord Hutton and  "the evidence that was ordered to be held back for 70 years "Hutton claimed that he had done so to protect Kelly''s wife and daughters

from the distress of further media reports about the death, saying: "My

request was not a concealment of evidence because every matter of

relevance had been examined or was available for examination during the

public inquiry. There was no secrecy surrounding the postmortem report

because it had always been available for examination and questioning by

counsel representing the interested parties during the inquiry."

''The Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, considered the issue again

in March 2004. After reviewing evidence not presented to the Hutton

Inquiry, Gardiner decided there was no need for further investigation.''

so yet again a rightwing nut job sees no problem in peddling misinformation

quelle surprise !

[/quote]You said there was no proof to any of the claims about Kelly''s death, then you label one side''s claims as misinformation. That''s a rather strange turn of logic, even by your own standards.

[/quote]

no that is you on other one of your flying saucers, 7ft unicorns rambles[/quote]This is a rather ironic remark since you seem to post from the land of pink elephants half the time. The only respite we seem to get from you is when the drinks cabinet is empty and you''re busy stumbling to the local off licence.

[Blurboy1980 36]

First off....I did watch both with a friend of mine (I''m British shes American) and she said British pride is really nice compared to American where Americans hoot and holler about being number 1 where she sees that were just proud to be British. (Its pretty amazing the country the size of Florida has influenced the world in so many ways)

2nd I enjoy living in America (Florida but trying to move out west to the mountains) but I would have no problem moving back to Britain. America isn''t as great as some people like to think it is. Healthcare here is a joke...which I mean there isn''t any at all..You have to pay an arm and a leg to have insurance but that isn''t the start of it...then you have to pay to see the doctor on top of the insurance and then if you need surgery you have to pay the copay which sometimes can be 2-$10,000. Trust me I know the NHS isn''t perfect but its far better than whats here. Most people cant afford insurance here so they only go when its an emergency and then they are left in debt which they are never able to catch up. (I have been thinking of moving to Canada lately)

And the obsession here with guns is scary as soon as you talk about gun control and making background checks a little stronger they flip out. They would rather a school shooting daily then any thoughts of making gun control happen.

3rd I did watch the FA Cup and to think we only lost to Chelsea on Penalties ugh.