T
The Exile
Guest
gerrin there Anne lass
That boss was particularly pompous so it was brilliant like. I had to walk very quickly to the wagon trying not to laugh.
Surely its time to end Royal madness
- Thread starter Ghost of Bagpuss
- Start date
- Status
That boss was particularly pompous so it was brilliant like. I had to walk very quickly to the wagon trying not to laugh.
Ghost of Bagpuss
Central Defender
Agreed, totally Labours fault and Blairs and damaged the memory of what was otherwise an excellent 10 years in terms of running the country.
The only caveat I would add to it is the tories voted massively in favour of the war and as the opposition certainly did not oppose and question Blair enough when it was clear the "evidence" was bull shit, the arguments for war completely flawed.......
For this reason I am delighted that we have someone questioning the Govt at every stage over its desperation to blame Russia for the poisoning of their former spy.....Like John Simpson on wireless last night and Corby I agree that if we are going to start making accusations at a nuclear power we better be 100% sure not that it was "highly likely" that it was the Russians.
I was actually surprised that Simpson when asked to comment fell off the fence and said that Corbyn was right to be questioning the Govt and not jumping in with both feet.
Haway Man Baggy, you don’t honestly believe that do you? You know what the answer is. Denmark is not a more equal society than us because their queen does her own shopping FFS.
Last edited:
Ghost of Bagpuss
Central Defender
Oh dear, even the Govt admit its a massive problem (while not doing a single thing about it)
State of the Nation report on social mobility in Great Britain - GOV.UK
The Rt Hon Alan Milburn, chair of the Social Mobility Commission, said:
The rungs on the social mobility ladder are growing further apart. It is becoming harder for this generation of struggling families to move up.
The social divisions we face in Britain today impact many more people and places than the very poorest in society or the few thousands youngsters who miss out on a top university. Whole sections of society and whole tracts of Britain feel left behind.
The growing sense that we have become an ‘us and them’ society - where a few unfairly entrench power and wealth to themselves - is deeply corrosive of our cohesion as a nation.
As the EU referendum result showed, the public mood is sour and decision-makers have been far too slow to respond.
We applaud the Prime Minister’s determination to heal social division and foster social progress. That is a big ambition. It will require big action. Fundamental reforms are needed in our country’s education system, labour market and local economies to address Britain’s social mobility problem. That should be the holy grail of public policy, the priority for government and the cause which unites the nation to action.
WHD
Striker
If we opened up the palaces we'd get more people visiting them, it's as simple as that.I wasn’t the one making the argument getting rid of them would boost tourism
Thick as mince!
raindog
Winger
Just to make my stance clear ...Happy with a King/ Queen and their immediate siblings, however their cousins aunts and uncles need to become self sufficient or scale down if financial costs determine.
Interesting fact
The Royal Moto of Dieu et mon droit emphasised the raising of the "right hand" during installations and coronations of German Kings.
Interesting fact
Logon or register to see this image
The Royal Moto of Dieu et mon droit emphasised the raising of the "right hand" during installations and coronations of German Kings.
Bakerlooline
Striker
I never said there wasn’t a problem. I said you inane waffling was bollocks. The whole point of this thread was that you believe we should abolish the Royal Family. Yet nothing you have posted until this has been factual or remotely correct, and this one factual piece (2 years out of date) makes no claims of the Royal Family causing a problem with social mobility, aspirations or anything else. The bit about the “few unfairly entrench power and wealth...” is equally as applicable to politicians and business men/women as it is the Royals.
raindog
Winger
I 100% agree about Blair, however disagree as it was Thatcher who persuaded Bush in 1990 to initiate the First Gulf war
9. Defining moments of the Thatcher years | Gulf war advice to Bush | 3 August 1990
Britain had taken a special role in the 1991 intervention: Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had been closely involved in building the strong international consensus over the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait: she and her Cabinet in August 1990 embarked on the deployment of British troops to the Middle East in order to create barrier for any further Iraqi aggression. The clear support of the United Nations Security Council and the fact that Iraq had clearly violated international agreements helped to convince many MPs to support the military operation. As the deadline set in UN Security Council resolution 678 calling for Iraqi withdrawal – 15 January 1991 – passed, there was much concern within parts of the Labour Party about the possibility of military action. Yet the party leadership backed supporting the Security Council’s resolution with force, and opposition within the Labour Party had relatively little impact.
Parliament’s role in the build-up to the war had reflected the traditional assumption that foreign policy issues, and even the decision to go for war, were largely for the executive to decide, with Parliament to approve retrospectively. There had been an emergency recall of Parliament in summer 1990 (September 6 and 7) in order to debate the Iraqi invasion; there was broad and more or less coherent support for the government’s action, though a very vocal antiwar opposition; some MPs even traveled to Iraq in an attempt to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. But the government was in control, reporting its actions to the Commons in statements such as that on 24 October. The use of force was preceded by a vote, on 15 January 1991, the same day as the deadline to the Iraqi withdrawal ended; but crucially, it was on a motion for the adjournment, rather than on a specific motion authorizing the war. Only 57 MPs voted against the adjournment. Parliamentarians were not given a chance to vote on war on a substantive motion until the troops were in combat, on 21 January 1991.
Nevertheless, the debate on 15 January saw a demand for an enhanced role for Parliament. The deployment of troops on combat operations authorized by the royal prerogative and without prior parliamentary consent was described by Tony Benn as an “old feudal anachronism … wheeled out to bypass the House.” Benn had demanded a vote with a substantive motion prior to the use of force. Closely linked to a broader discussion on what were regarded especially on the left as the outdated aspects of British constitutional arrangements, the argument, though at the time it attracted few supporters beyond the left-wing of the Labour party, was important: by the next significant military conflict that involved Britain, the NATO operation in Kosovo in 1999, Benn’s demand that Parliament should not be left on the sideline in terms of approving military action had become more typical. The tense and dramatic vote on 18 March 2003 on the Iraq war, and subsequent votes on war in Libya and Syria can be traced back to the debates in 1990 and 1991.
Ghost of Bagpuss
Central Defender
Another bizarre saying in a country that is more than 50% non believers.....God wont be saving the Queen.
Bakerlooline
Striker
I wasn’t talking about the first Gulf War. That was in 1991, 13 years before Blair waded in. I don’t believe their was any real objection to the First Gulf War as it was about supporting Kuwait in expelling an aggressor and oil, obviously.
TK-421
Winger
She is the defender of the faith (allegedly but, as you say, has struggled somewhat), is the head of our established national religion (although it can be argued that this is no longer true owing to the equality act), and was coronated in a time where the vast majority of the country were believers.
seahamstar
Striker
I'll give the Tories credit for convincing the masses in this country that just about everything 'bad' that's gone on is 'Labours fault'.
More fool the voters of this country for believing it all
raindog
Winger
Without the first there probably would not have been a 2nd? Saddam (depending on how you view the current mess that is the middle east and the subsequent rise in Al Qaeda), Probably had to rule his country with a iron fist the way that he did. I'm certain he had always intended on being a big player in that region, which has since descended into total chaos for all concerned. However I suppose its all hypothetical as no can be sure what the outcome would have been in that region if he were to have been still in power.
ProfessionalMackem
Striker
Fuck them and their hangers on. Without their hereditary privileges and hand outs they would be useless.
Put them on the dole queue and cut the wheat from the chaff. I bet 99% of them would end up in the gutter because they are totally worthless as human beings.
All Royals are inbred nazi nonces.
Put them on the dole queue and cut the wheat from the chaff. I bet 99% of them would end up in the gutter because they are totally worthless as human beings.
All Royals are inbred nazi nonces.
seahamstar
Striker
The REAL reason for the first Gulf War.
If there were no oil fields in Kuwait - it would still be 'part of Iraq' to this day.
Nothing to do with 'Expelling an aggressor' imo.
Mackem00
Striker
Are you saying I'm not a working man Adam. And I thought we were friends......
D
Deleted member 27677
Guest
Well said .How the Left can try and rewrite history on the damage that was done to this country and others on their watch is a disgrace .
I know your a working man Moo who pays his way and looks after his good lady.
Your the type of fella who I’d like to give my daughter away to one day tbh,warm ,humble ,compassionate with a strong morale compass.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost of Bagpuss
Central Defender
The only way they attempted to justify the 2nd war was by using a UN resolution passed in the 1st gulf war as the UN also saw through the bull shit and war mongering and were not going to vote in favour of military action......The use of the UN resolution from the first Gulf War was also a load of bollox that few believed was lawful
Harry Angstrom
Striker
100% agreed. I also agree with people who want to keep them because they love them.
- Status
