Trevor Sinclair

[ricardo 7,385]

9 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

The duvet protester’s at Carrow Road had better numbers and made more noise. 

Hanging's to good for 'em😉

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Is that when he was filming in a court of law nearly bringing down a whole case? 

So what? You only respect the law when you agree with it anyway. Why should anyone else be any different? 

Point was his arrest was under breach of the peace legislation, which is the same law these folks are being arrested under. Now apparently you don't agree with breach of the peace law. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,756]

A massive dose of false equivalence to finish that debate off. 

[shefcanary 2,402]

13 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Charles is her son and her rightful heir as her first-born son. Absolutely it's disrespectful to her to challenge her son's right to succeed her after her death, especially during the grieving period amongst a huge number of people there to pay respects upon her passing. 

On Andrew, didn't the Queen ask him to stand down from public duties? Who has rescinded her wishes? If the new King I'd suggest that is not the best look really, but recognise it is a difficult one for him as they are brothers. However if he has just acceded to the establishment on this, who are trying to brush the accusations against Andrew under the carpet, that is another kettle of fish.  

In the end I think as it was only one sole protester and the fact the media actually commented on it, rather than make out it didn't happen, is really rather healthy. It suggests the debate will not be lost and Andrew is not going to fade quietly into the shadows without further recriminations of his actions.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

3 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

On Andrew, didn't the Queen ask him to stand down from public duties? Who has rescinded her wishes? If the new King I'd suggest that is not the best look really, but recognise it is a difficult one for him as they are brothers. However if he has just acceded to the establishment on this, who are trying to brush the accusations against Andrew under the carpet, that is another kettle of fish.  

In the end I think as it was only one sole protester and the fact the media actually commented on it, rather than make out it didn't happen, is really rather healthy. It suggests the debate will not be lost and Andrew is not going to fade quietly into the shadows without further recriminations of his actions.

You think he should be barred from proceedings honouring his own mother after her death?

Edited September 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Pyro Pete 1,893]

How insecure in your world view do you have to be to get all riled up by one or two people with placards stating 'Not my king'?

So you really think the monarchy is at risk if people dare voice a different opinion to your own?

[shefcanary 2,402]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You think he should be barred from proceedings honouring his own mother after her death?

It is a difficult issue, because it could have brought real unwanted stress to the rest of the royal family. Grief is fundamentally a private matter. Given his mother's wishes, perhaps Andrew himself could have accepted them, but I accept the media would have reacted to his absence placing unwanted stress on his family?

As I said, in the end the the protest was noted, the funeral cortege continued relatively unaffected. Healthy.

[Aggy 755]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

I guess. I find it bizarre people have that sort of life energy to devote to protesting something that doesn't really effect them beyond generating money for the country they live in.

Yes it is bizarre that some people think we ought to have a political system where the head of state gets the job based on ability rather than because their great great great great great great grandad was good with a sword a thousand years ago. 

You do make a good point on money generation though. Take France - they haven’t had a tourist since the eighteenth century and all their old royal palaces are abandoned empty ruins.

[Bort 34]

11 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

To be honest, I don't really care about fairness on this one. I like the monarchy. I liked the Queen. The monarchy is not a reasonable, rational way of doing things, but still I like it as something that brightens up an otherwise dull country, and the rest of the world finds quite interesting as well. It enjoys a majority of public support, so I don't see why the enjoyment of the vast majority should be spoiled for the benefit of small-minded iconoclasts. 

This sentiment is what most pro-monarchy arguments seem to boil down to, at their core. 

"I like it. It's interesting. It's popular."

The reason it's popular is because royalist sentiment is woven throughout our society. The Queen's face is on our money. Her initials are on our letterboxes. She delivered a televised address to millions of people every Christmas. She enjoyed near-constant positive press in the media (which bizarrely seemed to be more endangered by her reaction to Diana's death than her paying off Prince Andrew's victims).

Our country is not "otherwise dull". Normal life might seem dull in comparison to the royals, because normal life isn't as thoroughly curated and propagandised and held aloft from society.

Our focus should be on enhancing normal life - bolstering democracy to improve working conditions, education, healthcare, housing etc. - rather than protecting this pantomime which makes the current state of affairs seem more bearable. It's "small-minded" to resist progress because of a misguided sense of comfort.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

A 

30 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

It is a difficult issue, because it could have brought real unwanted stress to the rest of the royal family. Grief is fundamentally a private matter. Given his mother's wishes, perhaps Andrew himself could have accepted them, but I accept the media would have reacted to his absence placing unwanted stress on his family?

As I said, in the end the the protest was noted, the funeral cortege continued relatively unaffected. Healthy.

I find it very hard to believe that any of the royal family would be so cruel as to wish to bar Andrew from proceedings surrounding his mother's death, however disgraced he is; people seem to forget that they are still a real family.

We have a convicted felon in my family who was still released for the day to attend my gran's funeral, and we greeted him as family. Needless to say no members of the public turned up to shout their disgust at the crime for which he was convicted. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

35 minutes ago, Bort said:

This sentiment is what most pro-monarchy arguments seem to boil down to, at their core. 

"I like it. It's interesting. It's popular."

The reason it's popular is because royalist sentiment is woven throughout our society. The Queen's face is on our money. Her initials are on our letterboxes. She delivered a televised address to millions of people every Christmas. She enjoyed near-constant positive press in the media (which bizarrely seemed to be more endangered by her reaction to Diana's death than her paying off Prince Andrew's victims).

Our country is not "otherwise dull". Normal life might seem dull in comparison to the royals, because normal life isn't as thoroughly curated and propagandised and held aloft from society.

Our focus should be on enhancing normal life - bolstering democracy to improve working conditions, education, healthcare, housing etc. - rather than protecting this pantomime which makes the current state of affairs seem more bearable. It's "small-minded" to resist progress because of a misguided sense of comfort.

There's no positive progress in removing the royal family. In practical terms, the royal family provides a fantastic ceremonial function that contributes to the nation's brand globally; working royals contribute hugely to raising awareness of many good causes and encouraging others to get involved; the Crown Estate provides nearly three times as much revenue annually to the treasury as it costs the treasury to maintain the public functions of the monarchy; it enjoys more public support as an institution than any elected head of state could dream of.

Replacing it means the end of one of the UK's two most valuable diplomatic tools, the end of the crown estate, which would likely finish off being sold cheap into private hands, and future ceremonial occasions being conducted by partisan and divisive politicians instead of someone who tries to be a unifying figure.

Change on purely ideological grounds in the face of all pragmatic arguments, not to mention that the majority are okay with the status quo, is not progress.

Edited September 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

1 hour ago, Bort said:

This sentiment is what most pro-monarchy arguments seem to boil down to, at their core. 

"I like it. It's interesting. It's popular."

The reason it's popular is because royalist sentiment is woven throughout our society. The Queen's face is on our money. Her initials are on our letterboxes. She delivered a televised address to millions of people every Christmas. She enjoyed near-constant positive press in the media (which bizarrely seemed to be more endangered by her reaction to Diana's death than her paying off Prince Andrew's victims).

Our country is not "otherwise dull". Normal life might seem dull in comparison to the royals, because normal life isn't as thoroughly curated and propagandised and held aloft from society.

Our focus should be on enhancing normal life - bolstering democracy to improve working conditions, education, healthcare, housing etc. - rather than protecting this pantomime which makes the current state of affairs seem more bearable. It's "small-minded" to resist progress because of a misguided sense of comfort.

Sorry, I forgot to address what you pointed out about it being popular because it's woven into society. I agree . You could even argue that it's an institutionalised cult of personality not dissimilar to what most dictators and elected leaders who seek to become dictators seek to create around themselves; it's rather clever to build a cult of personality into the fabric of the state that makes it harder for elected politicians to build one around themselves. Take the monarch away and Boris Johnson's own cult of personality might have been unstoppable.

[Bort 34]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's no positive progress in removing the royal family. In practical terms, the royal family provides a fantastic ceremonial function that contributes to the nation's brand globally; working royals contribute hugely to raising awareness of many good causes and encouraging others to get involved; the Crown Estate provides nearly three times as much revenue annually to the treasury as it costs the treasury to maintain the public functions of the monarchy; it enjoys more public support as an institution than any elected head of state could dream of.

Replacing it means the end of one of the UK's two most valuable diplomatic tools, the end of the crown estate, which would likely finish off being sold cheap into private hands, and future ceremonial occasions being conducted by partisan and divisive politicians instead of someone who tries to be a unifying figure.

Change on purely ideological grounds in the face of all pragmatic arguments, not to mention that the majority are okay with the status quo, is not progress.

The royal family are a vestigial product of belief in the divine right of kings. They represent a culture of deference by the masses to individual will, and the triumph of hereditary power over meritocracy. As long as they remain in place, that culture can never truly be overcome.

Our country would be more worthy of respect on the world stage if we had a democratically elected head of state, rather than the novelty of an anachronistic royal "brand". That's intuitive.

What "good causes" have they "raised awareness" of? Are you talking about Charles' Malthusian environmentalism? They reflect the bare minimum expectations of what society defines as acceptable, rather than acting as a progressive force. Charity, but not addressing the systemic issues that make charity necessary.

Do you know what could provide even more revenue to the treasury? Bringing the Crown Estate into public ownership and scrapping the Sovereign Grant. How about that?

You say that "the majority are okay with the status quo", but again that's only because people have been conditioned to mentally separate the existence of the royal family from the wider state of society. The public are angry with the latter, but it's produced by the same culture and economic structure which maintains the former.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

The royal family are a vestigial product of belief in the divine right of kings. They represent a culture of deference by the masses to individual will, and the triumph of hereditary power over meritocracy. As long as they remain in place, that culture can never truly be overcome.

Our country would be more worthy of respect on the world stage if we had a democratically elected head of state, rather than the novelty of an anachronistic royal "brand". That's intuitive.

What "good causes" have they "raised awareness" of? Are you talking about Charles' Malthusian environmentalism? They reflect the bare minimum expectations of what society defines as acceptable, rather than acting as a progressive force. Charity, but not addressing the systemic issues that make charity necessary.

Do you know what could provide even more revenue to the treasury? Bringing the Crown Estate into public ownership and scrapping the Sovereign Grant. How about that?

You say that "the majority are okay with the status quo", but again that's only because people have been conditioned to mentally separate the existence of the royal family from the wider state of society. The public are angry with the latter, but it's produced by the same culture and economic structure which maintains the former.

Bring the Crown Estate into public ownership to be sold cheap into private hands you mean, which is what the last Labour and Conservative governments have done with most public assets; they're better off entrusted to the monarch.

 

[Bort 34]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sorry, I forgot to address what you pointed out about it being popular because it's woven into society. I agree . You could even argue that it's an institutionalised cult of personality not dissimilar to what most dictators and elected leaders who seek to become dictators seek to create around themselves; it's rather clever to build a cult of personality into the fabric of the state that makes it harder for elected politicians to build one around themselves. Take the monarch away and Boris Johnson's own cult of personality might have been unstoppable.

I agree with some of that analysis, but saying you need an unelected cult of personality to protect against an elected cult of personality is... interesting.

A far better solution is arming the public with critical thinking skills and empowering them through democracy to hold their leadership to account, both in government and the workplace.

[Bort 34]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Bring the Crown Estate into public ownership to be sold cheap into private hands you mean, which is what the last Labour and Conservative governments have done with most public assets; they're better off entrusted to the monarch.

 

Sounds like you also want a socialist government which won't privatise public assets? Good to have you on board, comrade!

[Pyro Pete 1,893]

And as with Boris, an elected Head of State can be removed from office.

A Head of State appointed by God cannot.

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

2 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

And as with Boris, an elected Head of State can be removed from office.

A Head of State appointed by God cannot.

Amen to that.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

Sounds like you also want a socialist government which won't privatise public assets? Good to have you on board, comrade!

Problem with that is once your socialist government goes, the assets get sold never to return. Better for the assets to remain entrusted to a non-partisan custodian out of the reach of all politicians.

Actually, I like a lot of elements of socialism; many things can be good in moderation.

[pete 319]

 think you will find Chas 1 was removed and lost his head.

[Pyro Pete 1,893]

2 minutes ago, pete said:

 think you will find Chas 1 was removed and lost his head.

Unless you're volunteering to go full-on Cromwell/Robespierre, that's not really an option today.

[Pyro Pete 1,893]

Hey, look, LYB is in today's Guardian football cartoon:

[Bort 34]

18 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Problem with that is once your socialist government goes, the assets get sold never to return. Better for the assets to remain entrusted to a non-partisan custodian out of the reach of all politicians.

Actually, I like a lot of elements of socialism; many things can be good in moderation.

Your first point illustrates perfectly why socialist policy can't be sustainably applied "in moderation" i.e. without liberating the democratic process from corporate interests (or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in Marxist terms).

The monarchy compromised in the aftermath of the civil war and aligned their interests with those of the bourgeoisie, which is why the royal family has been allowed to exist as a mostly-symbolic institution since Charles II.

[cornish sam 953]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

It is a difficult issue, because it could have brought real unwanted stress to the rest of the royal family. Grief is fundamentally a private matter. Given his mother's wishes, perhaps Andrew himself could have accepted them, but I accept the media would have reacted to his absence placing unwanted stress on his family?

As I said, in the end the the protest was noted, the funeral cortege continued relatively unaffected. Healthy.

Just on this one, he is taking part in the events as a private citizen, not as a working royal, hence he was wearing a suit instead of military uniform like the rest of them. You can't exclude a son from his mother's funerary events, so it is a difficult balance for sure. There is going to be one event he does wear his uniform at, I think it might be the actual funeral, but can't remember the reasoning for that, but he is still excommunicated from the working royal family.

[hogesar 9,658]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

But, but the tourists.....

Maybe people want to live in a real democracy not some theme park. 

Maybe they could eloquently put forward a case detailing all aspects of decisions made by the Queen which directly impacted on them that they aren't happy with? Or they could just scribble on boards and not wash very often. Each to their own in that respect, I guess.

If they've got time in their day to protest directly after an old lady passes away then fair play, they must have a lot of free time.

[Herman 9,756]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Maybe they could eloquently put forward a case detailing all aspects of decisions made by the Queen which directly impacted on them that they aren't happy with? Or they could just scribble on boards and not wash very often. Each to their own in that respect, I guess.

If they've got time in their day to protest directly after an old lady passes away then fair play, they must have a lot of free time.

For a young 'un you can be a right old gammon sometimes. 😀

[astro 360]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Maybe they could eloquently put forward a case detailing all aspects of decisions made by the Queen which directly impacted on them that they aren't happy with? Or they could just scribble on boards and not wash very often. Each to their own in that respect, I guess.

If they've got time in their day to protest directly after an old lady passes away then fair play, they must have a lot of free time.

You really have a great knack of stapling poor personal hygiene on those you don’t agree with don’t you 😂😂😂😂

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

2 hours ago, Bort said:

Your first point illustrates perfectly why socialist policy can't be sustainably applied "in moderation" i.e. without liberating the democratic process from corporate interests (or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in Marxist terms).

The monarchy compromised in the aftermath of the civil war and aligned their interests with those of the bourgeoisie, which is why the royal family has been allowed to exist as a mostly-symbolic institution since Charles II.

You can't liberate corporate interests from the democratic process. You can only get rid of democratic process, as with North Korea and China, where the 'Communist' systems are both cults of personality that look a lot like a feudal monarchy, complete with executing political opposition. As for economics, China is more akin to a corporate state with it's intriguing flavour of capitalism. 

Let's face it, maybe the monarchy's fairy tales, but in reality so is socialism, just one has fairy tales with princes and princesses and the other is one where everybody pretends others are equal while their leaders are deferred to no differently from monarchs anyway; more so if anything. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

A massive dose of false equivalence to finish that debate off. 

How on Earth is it false equivalence to refer to someone protesting who was arrested under breach of the peace laws that you were completely okay with back then to point out the utter hypocrisy of your 'freedom of protest' defence for not exercising breach of the peace laws now when you happen to agree with their point of view and enjoy the disruption they're causing?

Freedom to protest so long as Herman and friends approve of the protest. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[hogesar 9,658]

40 minutes ago, Herman said:

For a young 'un you can be a right old gammon sometimes. 😀

It's slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not completely). 😄