Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Independent... Two Fingers To The Queen  
User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Anyone seen the front cover of today's (Friday) Independent?

With all the hype of the Queen's 80th today all over the media and the papers, the left-wing Independent has chosen to place a massive photo of the king of Nepal on the front page, in full royal dress, standing in front of his throne. Page 2 is entirely covered with the story.

I think this is great. The crisis there is far more important than the 80th birthday of a monarch that is increasinly out of place in today's society. Would they have displayed this blatant royal-looking photo on the front page if it hadn't been the Queen's birthday today? Someone in the office even thought it was the Queen from a glance at a distance.

There is a short paragraph in the middle of the paper on her birthday.

http://www.independent.co.uk

[Edit: Add link]

[Edited 2006-04-21 17:34:09]

78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Thread starter):
a monarch that is increasinly out of place in today's society.

Exactly why HM Queen Elizabeth out of place?

Is HM Queen Margrethe II of Denmark out of place?

How about HM Queen Beatrix of Holland?


Please explain....


Lee



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

In 2006 I am astounded that we still have the Queen as our head of State and fork out millions of pounds (50p for every man, woman and child in this country per year = £30m) of hard earned taxpayers money on her and her family that I believe could be better spent elsewhere. In my mind ‘the royals’ have little regard for the ordinary people of this country, and are in fact an embarrassment in terms of their behaviours and attitudes. Unjustified and unearned extravagence are becoming harder to get away with in this 21st century 1st world society. Especially when much of it is so blatantly at the expense of the tax paying public. There is simply no place for it. People wise up and start to question this kind of thing as time goes on.

[Edit: the year  Smile]

[Edited 2006-04-21 17:50:51]

User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
There is simply no place for it.

There is every place for it.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
hard earned taxpayers money on her

 Yeah sure

The Royal family attract the tourists and therefore extra income.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
Especially when much of it is so blatantly at the expense of the tax paying public

The Queen pays income tax too.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
People wise up and start to question this kind of thing as time goes on.

Some people. Usually Independant readers. Those that are totally out of touch with reality


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 1):
Exactly why HM Queen Elizabeth out of place?

Indeed. People seem to be under the impression that the monarchy has had one long glorious history of unquestioned devotion, and that only the last 15 years has seen even the remotest questioning. Utter nonsense of course.

Leaving aside the fact that we did have a Republic at one point having executed the king, the Victorian period saw vicious, scatalogical attacks on the monarchy without any parallel today from pamphleteers, cartoonists and the mainstream press. For much of her reign, Victoria was loathed. With the dissolution of the Empire there was again lots of debate about ending the monarchy.

In fact, with the exception of the brief period post the death of Diana, the monarchy has rarely been stronger in this country. It exists because people like it and want it. The number of republicans in Britain as a percentage is almost certainly lower than it has been at virtually any time over the last 300 years - simply because historically it's so unusual for it to be such an utter non issue. It isn't a hugely positive adoration of the monarchy; it's a quiet contentment with the status quo, and a strong feeling that anything else would be worse.

It exists because people are happy with it. And that's it, really. The Independent are just trying to be contrary. Nothing wrong with, it's a valuable role to play, but I wouldn't pay it any more attention than that.

[Edited 2006-04-21 18:27:02]


She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
In 2006 I am astounded that we still have the Queen as our head of State and fork out millions of pounds (50p for every man, woman and child in this country per year = £30m

yeah, i mean i really miss that 50p a year  Yeah sure

Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 3):
The Queen pays income tax too

whats her income? our tax? does she pay tax on our tax? lol


User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 5):
whats her income? our tax? does she pay tax on our tax? lol

Much of the Queen's private income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster - an estate comprising more than 19,000 hectares of land, which made the Queen £7.3m before tax in 2000-01.


User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 3):
The Royal family attract the tourists and therefore extra income.

The argument that they bring in significant revenue in tourism is no reason to keep them. We're not a tourist attraction, we're a democracy. Ask those given a poor education, living in a deprived area if they think it's justified £30,000,000 can be spent on one family, when the goverment won't fund the regeneration of their area. I would like to see the monarchy done away with altogether, at least downgraded. Abolish the civil list tomorrow, let the country and the people take back the ‘acquired’ land and wealth from the Windsor’s and extended family.

Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 3):
The Queen pays income tax too.

She may pay income tax but this is in fact mimimal compared with an individual who would have a similar income. Add the £30m or so the royals TAKE from the tax payer, and it net terms they pay nothing.

Quoting Joshdean (Thread starter):
Some people. Usually Independant readers. Those that are totally out of touch with reality

I see no justification for this last comment, so please explain.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
People wise up and start to question this kind of thing as time goes on.

You seem to be existing in a bubble of only recognising the last decade or so. Perhaps you should read a little history on the subject before commenting.

It's not that you're necessarily wrong in wishing for abolition, but your reasons for desiring it are flawed. Perhaps you should seek some guidance from Qantasforever on the subject. Whilst his own views pertain to Australia rather than Britain, his wishes for the removal of the monarchy are at least logical and well-argued, and thus form a better platform for debate than those you have listed above.

[Edited 2006-04-21 18:18:40]


She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2253 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 7):
We're not a tourist attraction, we're a democracy.

Oh good. Since approval for the monarchy runs at over 80%, which is virtual unanimity in a pluralistic society, I presume you fully accept that your view carries very little weight in society as a whole?



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2246 times:

It would appear Josh that you have an axe to grind regarding the Royal Family. Something that the Independant panders to. However, you may be somewhat upset to learn that not everyone has your point of view.

I have heard this arguement so many times from some people who all have aspirations for the UK to become a Republic. If the bulk of the UK wanted a republic, then I feel sure that there would have been one by now. Which means that perhaps the bulk of the UK doesnt share your dislike and apparent loathing for them. Which puts you a bit out on a limb.

However, since this is a Democracy, you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am along with everyone else on these forums. Just don't expect all of us to agree with you. Because I for one don't.

I frankly couldn't care less how much they cost us in hard cash. I am perfectly happy with them where they are. They are infinitely more preferable than an "elected" President who is here today and gone tomorrow - with probably more cash than the Royals use in a lifetime.

And your rather blase statement about tourism doesnt wash. Tell that to the millions of tourists who come across to London in the hope of glimpsing one of the Royals or even the Queen, spending their cash here. Even you must be able to see that a considerable bulk of the country's income relies on tourism. Whatever YOU may think, they are an asset to this country and work a damn sight harder than either you or I do.

Andy  old 



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineBristolFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 3):
There is every place for it.

 checkmark 

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 7):
The argument that they bring in significant revenue in tourism is no reason to keep them. We're not a tourist attraction

Is serves every economy well to attract tourists to the country. I used be cynical as to the role of the monarchy, but now I've grown up and I've seen what they do, I support them.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
In my mind ‘the royals’ have little regard for the ordinary people of this country,

I guess the 'in my mind' comment is the get-out clause for a blatant disregard of the truth. Unless of course you don't know the truth. Do you know how much work they do for charity (not just the Queen, ALL of them)? Have you heard of the Prince's Trust, for example? I have seen at first hand how much work they do to help the less fortunate, the impoverished etc etc. Can you remember seeing Princess Diana championing Aids causes? And land mine issues?

And then there's the intangible. Don't you have a sense of nationalistic pride that we have a royal family? Remember the Jubilee celebrations when a million people lined the streets of Pall Mall? 50p seems like a good deal to belong to a country that has those sort of things going on.

BF



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 8):
You seem to be existing in a bubble of only recognising the last decade or so

Sorry, I missed the point where I mentioned it only being the last decade or so. Could you point it out?

Quoting Banco (Reply 8):
Perhaps you should read a little history on the subject before commenting.

If I were to 'read a little history' before commenting on everything throughout the day I would have no time to do anything. Nothing I have said is factually wrong and would have benefited from 'reading a little history' beforehand.

Quoting Banco (Reply 8):
but your reasons for desiring it are flawed

I 'desire' it because of the financial, moral and democartic reasons. What people desire is not always straightfroward and acheivable. Which part of what I have said is flawed?

Quoting Banco (Reply 8):
Whislt his own views pertain to Australia rather than Britain, his wish for the removal of the monarchy are at least logical and well-argued, and thus form a better platform for debate than those you have listed above.

Well what are those arguments then? There's no point saying somebody else has a better argument, then not saying what it is. That's hardly a 'better platfrom for debate'.

Anyway, platforms for debate aside, it's Friday evening so I'm going to drink so beer  bouncy 


User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
Oh good. Since approval for the monarchy runs at over 80%, which is virtual unanimity in a pluralistic society, I presume you fully accept that your view carries very little weight in society as a whole?

Of course I fully accept that. I have the view that Dire Straits prodcuce good music, although generally this is perceived not to be the case by most people. I still believe it and know that it has very little weight within music circles. But that's what an opinion is Banco. If all my opoionis were in line with what everybody else thinks and all the approval rating polls, I would be one hell of a boring person. I would probably be stuck at home reading up on a little history before I thought about making a comment on Saddam.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 12):
Sorry, I missed the point where I mentioned it only being the last decade or so. Could you point it out?

I quoted the relevant section before I said that. Try re-reading.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 12):
If I were to 'read a little history' before commenting on everything throughout the day I would have no time to do anything.

I think that's worthy of standing alone without further comment.  Yeah sure

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 12):
Nothing I have said is factually wrong and would have benefited from 'reading a little history' beforehand.

Er, yes, quite a lot of it was. Try even reading what others have said.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 12):
I 'desire' it because of the financial, moral and democartic reasons. What people desire is not always straightfroward and acheivable. Which part of what I have said is flawed?

Financial: That's just wrong. Any basic costing of a presidential system on a net basis suggests it is likely to cost more. It's been done. Research it.

Moral: Who made you God?

Democratic: The vast, VAST majority prefer the status quo. Democratically, you are so far wrong as to be not worth bothering with. Why is that people in the minority seem to feel that "democracy" doesn't apply to them?

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 12):
Well what are those arguments then? There's no point saying somebody else has a better argument, then not saying what it is. That's hardly a 'better platfrom for debate'.

It's not my place to speak for QFF. If you really want to know, do a search on his user name and ask him to send over his document on an Australian Republican system. It's interesting reading, whether you agree with him or not. And I'm not going to say any more because it's getting dangerously close to offering him praise, and I much prefer slagging him off. Big grin

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 12):
it's Friday evening so I'm going to drink so beer

Have one for the Queen, then.  Wink



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 13):
Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
Oh good. Since approval for the monarchy runs at over 80%, which is virtual unanimity in a pluralistic society, I presume you fully accept that your view carries very little weight in society as a whole?

Of course I fully accept that.

And then:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 12):
I 'desire' it because of [...] democratic reasons.

Hmmm.  scratchchin 



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 10):
you may be somewhat upset to learn that not everyone has your point of view

I am not at all upset that not everyone has my point of view, hence raising the subject in this forum. If I believed my opinion to be the only solution, regardless of what anyone else says, I wouldn't have posted this topic. The whole point of posting a topic is to invite comment in opinion.

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 10):
I frankly couldn't care less how much they cost us in hard cash.

I agree, but it's the principle more than the cash that is the reason for my view on this.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 16):
I agree, but it's the principle more than the cash that is the reason for my view on this.

You've lost me there. What principle? Any Head of State is going to cost a fortune, so what are you getting at?  Confused



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
I quoted the relevant section before I said that. Try re-reading.

Sorry, re-read, can't see the bit about the decade 'or so'. Perhaps you were referring to this bit though:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 2):
Unjustified and unearned extravagence are becoming harder to get away with in this 21st century 1st world society. Especially when much of it is so blatantly at the expense of the tax paying public. There is simply no place for it. People wise up and start to question this kind of thing as time goes on.

I take it you've seen the mess that's kicked off over the cost of Cheri Booth's hairstylest throught Labour's last election campaign, it's this kind of thing that I'm referring too, along with the cost of fuel Bush uses for his entourage whenever going anywhere etc. My point here is that with the rise of the media, the liberalisation of society and encouragement (and ability to get away with) more daring free speech, this can process can only be accelerated. Okay if it happens in 2,000 years time, we're still getting closer to that time at a quicker pace.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
I think that's worthy of standing alone without further comment

Excellent  Smile

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Er, yes, quite a lot of it was.

Opionions aside (as I think we've all made it clear there is no right or wrong opionion), which facts did I get wrong?

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Financial: That's just wrong. Any basic costing of a presidential system on a net basis suggests it is likely to cost more. It's been done. Research it.

Now that is simply not true.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Moral: Who made you God?

I think that should be god with a small 'g'  Wink

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Why is that people in the minority seem to feel that "democracy" doesn't apply to them?

I may be in the minority in this instance, but I certainly don't feel that excludes me from the democracy of this society.


User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Quoting BristolFlyer (Reply 11):
Don't you have a sense of nationalistic pride

Sorry, none. If anything I have sense of nationalistic shame for a whole host of reasons for which I'll save the details for another time. Iraq is the major one. At the other end of the spectrum, theres the way the (minority) of football fans behave when abroad.


User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 17):
What principle?

The fact that they take £30,000,000 from the public and too much of it goes on massively OTT purchases!


User currently offlineJoshdean From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

I really am going for beer now. I finished work an hour ago and I'm still sat at my desk, which is not good for a Friday. Evening all  wave 

User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 21):
I really am going for beer now

The Queen's Arms by any chance?  Big grin


User currently offlineBristolFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 19):
Sorry, none. If anything I have sense of nationalistic shame for a whole host of reasons for which I'll save the details for another time. Iraq is the major one. At the other end of the spectrum, theres the way the (minority) of football fans behave when abroad.

I agree there are a few things to be less than proud of - nothing is ever perfect. But really, those things are minor compared to the great things that the UK offers. The UK has great people, history, cutlure, heritage, beautiful scenery... I could go on. It's when you go to other countries you begin to realise just how great Britain really is.

Put aside your woes about a couple of hundred football hooligans and celebrate the fact that you live with tens of millions of great people.

http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/flypast/flypast5.jpg

Rule Britannia!

BF

[Edited 2006-04-21 19:32:05]


Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 18):
I take it you've seen the mess that's kicked off over the cost of Cheri Booth's hairstylest throught Labour's last election campaign, it's this kind of thing that I'm referring too, along with the cost of fuel Bush uses for his entourage whenever going anywhere etc. My point here is that with the rise of the media, the liberalisation of society and encouragement (and ability to get away with) more daring free speech, this can process can only be accelerated. Okay if it happens in 2,000 years time, we're still getting closer to that time at a quicker pace.

Firstly, the whole Cherie Blair thing was at the cost of the Labour Party, not the public purse. So it's irrelevant.

Secondly, the example of Bush is precisely the point others are making about the cost of any Head of State.

Finally, the point about "in 2,000 year's time" is nonsensical. you could advance an argument for Communism in the same way.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 18):
which facts did I get wrong?

Read people's comments.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 18):
Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Financial: That's just wrong. Any basic costing of a presidential system on a net basis suggests it is likely to cost more. It's been done. Research it.

Now that is simply not true.

You'll have to do better than that. What you are doing is including the cost of all castles, estates and palaces in the ledger for the cost of the Royal Family. You can't do that. These things will continue to cost exactly the same irrespective of what political system operates. What are you proposing? The demolition of Buckingham Palace and Balmoral? These things will still have to be paid for, and including them in the cost of the monarchy is plain wrong.

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 18):
I may be in the minority in this instance, but I certainly don't feel that excludes me from the democracy of this society.

You have said several times now that you want the monarhy abolished for "democratic" reasons. Given that the overwhelming majority want the monarchy, are you going to retract that?

Quoting Joshdean (Reply 20):
The fact that they take £30,000,000 from the public

As above, that's an outright lie. You are including the cost of huge numbers of things that will have to be paid for anyway.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
25 Post contains images Skidmarks : Well, obviously debate only happens while the pubs are shut It's really quite sad, that you have pride in your nationality, especially for the reasons
26 Pyrex : I don't want to barge in on a discussion between British people but you seem to be missing the whole point of why even a parliamentary monarchy is com
27 BHXFAOTIPYYC : You got a lot more than that from Britain via EU funds I guarantee. I used to enjoy reading The Independent, but I gave up when it took a distinct tu
28 Post contains links 777236ER : I don't think the increasingly-bizarre Indepenent (related to their more obvious Lib Dem affiliation?) really represents the majority view, or even th
29 Post contains links QANTASFOREVER : WOW This is what happens when you live on the other side of the world and you sleep through european daylight hours. The Queen of Denmark is in many r
30 777236ER : I don't have any respect for your profession, sorry. As for your opinions, is it not true that you don't agree with the Independent's opinion?
31 QANTASFOREVER : May I ask why? Well may you not respect what I do, but that is no cause for you to publicly disrespect it. I think it's sensationalised and obviously
32 QANTASforever : " target=_blank>http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/s....html Just a further note to (gasp) completely agree with you! Occasionally you find these litt
33 Banco : It isn't £30 million. As previously stated, he's including all the peripheral stuff that would have to be paid for anyway. The upkeep of palaces and
34 QANTASforever : Well - it may not be £30 million, but the cost is substantial. If you had a republic you wouldn't be paying for an entire family, just the infrastru
35 Banco : We aren't either. I can't remember the exact breakdown, but I think the Civil list only applies to the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of
36 Cornish : I was always under the belief that Charles got nothing from the Civil List as his money is generated by the Duchy of Cornwall. I could be wrong but i
37 Pyrex : Don't worry, you paid a lot less than the Dutch and the Germans did. They don't have rebates, you know... and if it wasn't for that how could you mak
38 QANTASforever : Don't forget to include their dependants. I'm quite sure Prince Andrew is included on the list. I believe there was a scandal a little while ago conc
39 777236ER : As you found out, given that you lost a bloody referendum on whether to scap the Queen as your head of state. Who gets the feeling that Qantasforever
40 Vc10 : Could be wrong but I believe in that Democracy called the USA, you might be a citizen, but unless you were born in the USA then you cannot be Preside
41 Post contains images Cornish : Unless you're a film star and then they might look into changing the rules in future
42 QANTASforever : No, it's an entirely different system here than in the UK. It's far more difficult to approve changes to the constitution here than it is where you a
43 Yyz717 : More importantly, why do you choose to continue to live in a constitutional monarchy whose wealth was created as a direct result of British tradition
44 Post contains images QANTASforever : You've made a false assumption - because I don't hate some British traditions. I recognise the various benefits of the Westminster system of governme
45 Yyz717 : Well, why not go anyway? What's the problem? You would be rid of the Queen and her terrible influence on you.
46 QANTASforever : I've tried to engage in a mature discussion with you. Clearly you're more interested in behaving like a child. QFF
47 Yyz717 : And your endless rants about the monarchy are not childish, especially given that you are enjoying a 1st-world living standard that you owe in strong
48 QANTASforever : For one, I disagree with you on the basis that most contend that Australia was built by Australians, and also I reject your assertion that Australia'
49 Yyz717 : Australia was built by Australians and Britons, both almost 100% of British background. The economic ethnic migrants, such as yourself, came later. M
50 QANTASforever : Yyz717 - I want you to be aware that you're coming across as being a bit aggressive. I'm quite happy to have a civilised discussion with you so long a
51 Jafa39 : I hate to be the one who tells you............
52 Yyz717 : The people who built Australia were 100% British stock. All the rest followed. Any recent economic migrant who gets to bask in the resulting modern d
53 QANTASforever : I'm sure the Irish Catholic among them (a VERY significant group in early Australia) would heartily disagree. I honestly think your knowledge of Aust
54 QANTASforever : May I also add - as a person that has (as far as I can remember) considered Australia home, why should I be denied the right to encourage a constituti
55 Post contains images Banco : I do keep trying to explain this to you, QFF, but I'm not sure you really understand me. I'm not a monarchist, per se. I don't have any particular lo
56 Post contains images Jafa39 : I do wish people would lay off the Royals, even my good friend QFF can't afford them the courtesy he thinks is due every other citizen on this planet
57 Post contains images QANTASFOREVER : Indeedy. We're very very similar, you know. Like you, I don't believe that a constitutional republic is necessarily appropriate for every country on
58 Post contains images Banco : You're just trying to avoid being sent to the Tower.
59 Bill142 : Sounds just like the Canberra Times
60 Post contains images VC10 : Although when QFE post a reply here you know it will be a rant against the royals, he has every right to air his opinions even if I do not agree with
61 QANTASforever : Have you seen a rant here? Looking above, I think I've been exceptionally reasonable and tolerant in the face of extremely childish behaviour. Your i
62 Post contains images VC10 : QFE, Those were not slurs, but compliments. I can see you are a true Australian as you don't have much sense of humour, which probably comes from havi
63 QANTASforever : What an odd little fellow you are, VC-10. QFF
64 Yyz717 : But they shouldn't. Out of respect for the British stock that willingly let in these impoverished economic migrants from their hellish homelands, in
65 QANTASforever : Oh please. Perhaps the statute of Westminster was anti-British racism? The development of a unique national anthem in the 1970s maybe? How about the
66 Post contains images VC10 : Yyz717, No country stays the same , even if there were no immigrants, outside influences from global travel would change a country's culture, so if yo
67 Yyz717 : I think I hit the nail on the head here. Anti-British racism is perhaps the cause of all this never ending anti-Queen and anti-Aussie tradition ranti
68 QANTASforever : Heh, if you do say so yourself. Yes, Yyz717 - you're absolutely right. Britons are generally caucasian and I simply can't stand that lot! My wife's a
69 Yyz717 : You claim to be joking but I wonder how much truth is in this joke? More than a little I would say.
70 QANTASforever : Yes. It's all true - I hate white people and the British...all of them. My neighbours, my children, my work mates, my friends - can't stand them all.
71 Post contains images Banco : Does she? She's not related to mine by any chance...?
72 Yyz717 : Wow, the first admittance by QFF that Aussie is primarly British, and that his future depends on British stock. Yes, I do know....I've been reading y
73 QANTASforever : You really don't read my posts properly, do you? Well, it seems that some of the British are turning against you now. Perhaps I can join forces? QFF
74 Post contains images Skidmarks : They are all bloody related, they're women!! A single goal in life and that's to stop males enjoying themselves. Oh, and nag them to the ends of the
75 GDB : Ah, The Indy. Used to be quite a good paper once. (I actually brought one Saturday night, to read on the tube back home after seeing The Flaming Lips
76 Pyrex : I was talking about the philosofical reasons why any monarchy is an unfair form of governance but apparently you just want to get personal. Just beca
77 Yyz717 : Nor does you being Portuguese make you an authority on Portuguese history. Banco has a point -- Portugal has a less than stellar record when it comes
78 Jafa39 : Thanks for starting my working week with a good laugh mate!!!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ollie North Part Two, Let The Atta Shredding Begin posted Fri Sep 16 2005 15:47:42 by TedTAce
The Proposed 'Queen Victoria' posted Tue Aug 23 2005 14:07:53 by United Airline
Like The Band Queen? posted Thu Mar 10 2005 15:43:54 by Pe@rson
Two For The Price Of One posted Fri Jul 11 2003 09:54:21 by UTA_flyinghigh
Congrats To Our Queen Beatrix Of The Netherlands posted Tue Apr 29 2003 21:29:07 by GunFighter 6
Detente! The Day The Falcon Came Down To Georgia posted Sun Nov 12 2006 03:26:39 by DL021
The First Snow Of The Season! posted Thu Nov 2 2006 22:58:49 by Birdwatching
So What's On The Other Side Of The World To You? posted Thu Oct 5 2006 21:17:59 by RJ111
The Stupidest Reason Not To Vote For X In '08 posted Sun Oct 1 2006 04:47:12 by TedTAce
Should The UK Better Utilise The Channel Tunnel? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 00:22:51 by RJ111