eddie Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Gritters said: Or simple organic compounds about 4 billion years ago. I like yeast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 1 hour ago, eddie said: Going back further, we are entirely descended from people from the Horn of Africa/Rift Valley region, possibly Ethiopia. Speak for yourself. Me ? I am dinosaur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Tony Le Mesmer said: Never heard of either never mind recognise them. That's probably for the best tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Gritters said: Or simple organic compounds about 4 billion years ago. You know that's not true. The world was created by God after he was injured at Sunderland and before he managed Hartlepool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Le Mesmer Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 25 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said: You know that's not true. The world was created by God after he was injured at Sunderland and before he managed Hartlepool. There's some surreal weirdness going round my head at the moment but God being manager of Hartlepool takes some beating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tony Le Mesmer said: There's some surreal weirdness going round my head at the moment but God being manager of Hartlepool takes some beating. After Hartlepool he took over the Rams ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 On 11/19/2016 at 05:35, reveldevil said: I've never understood why we'd need to replace the monarch with something else, like a presidency. What would be so bad about the Prime Minister becoming head of state, it's only a title after all? The problem is that the reason that the head of state position is "only a title" right now is due to convention, and the idea that the monarchy shouldn't interfere. An elected official acting as head of state would have a mandate, they would have some justification of using executive power, and that lone would change the dynamic between the positions. Having the Prime Minister as that head of state also just doesn't make sense in the Westminster System. Making someone their own boss is generally a terrible idea, and normally doesn't end well. On 11/19/2016 at 08:06, Mafiabob said: No fan of the Phone Hacker..... but agree with the sentiment The thing is, this is part of the deal between parliament and the Royal family. The UK makes bucketloads off that deal, and only need to do renovations a couple of times a century. Of all things to complain about with the Royal family, this isn't one of them. A complaint like this is on the level of the "Brexit NHS" comments in terms of understanding of the situation. Piers Morgan's only aim is to big up his media reputation, so I'm not surprised by such an ill informed comment though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Imagine being born into the royal family? I wouldn't moan at having privilege and wealth - who would? Im not quick at writing them off, they all do tremendous amounts for very worthwhile charities, bring in tons in tourism, ours is the most liked Royal family in the world, be proud of them I say. I love that they represent everything British in all their values, long may they continue. And Piers Morgan is and always will be a massive prat, 'owf with his head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafiabob Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 You know what frustrates me with this country..... we get quoted it only costs us £1 each in taxpayers money for the year to fund them...... I'd rather spend that £1 each to remove food banks and have the aim of not one person having to sleep in a doorway or under a bridge on a freezing December night. Rule Britainnia ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 21 minutes ago, Mafiabob said: You know what frustrates me with this country..... we get quoted it only costs us £1 each in taxpayers money for the year to fund them...... I'd rather spend that £1 each to remove food banks and have the aim of not one person having to sleep in a doorway or under a bridge on a freezing December night. Rule Britainnia ? I am all for redirecting where we spend money to help those who need it. I personally would make a start by refusing gastric band operations on the NHS. That would save us a lot more to start with. How about giving those who are starving a means to buy food instead of spending millions each year on those that eat too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, Paul71 said: I am all for redirecting where we spend money to help those who need it. I personally would make a start by refusing gastric band operations on the NHS. That would save us a lot more to start with. How about giving those who are starving a means to buy food instead of spending millions each year on those that eat too much. I agree with your sentiment, @Paul71, but believe it or not they give out gastric band ops as the thinking is that they will save the NHS a lot more money on the long run (cancer, heart treatment). I would spend all the money going on people struck down by illness, but people should take personal responsibility at least trying to lead a healthy lifestyle when they can affect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Just now, WhiteHorseRam said: I agree with your sentiment, @Paul71, but believe it or not they give out gastric band ops as the thinking is that they will save the NHS a lot more money on the long run (cancer, heart treatment). I would spend all the money going on people struck down by illness, but people should take personal responsibility at least trying to lead a healthy lifestyle when they can affect it. I know that's the sentiment, its just one I really struggle with. Eat less move more its not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 16 hours ago, Albert said: An elected official acting as head of state would have a mandate, they would have some justification of using executive power, and that lone would change the dynamic between the positions. That is demonstrably not the case. There is no need for a 'ceremonial' elected president to interfere with the workings of government. And in numerous countries they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 6 hours ago, Highgate said: That is demonstrably not the case. There is no need for a 'ceremonial' elected president to interfere with the workings of government. And in numerous countries they don't. Which countries are you referring to then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 11 hours ago, Albert said: Which countries are you referring to then? Take countries like Germany (who knows the president of Germany's name?), Finland, Ireland, Greece or Austria for example. They may have a little residual power on paper but they don't use it and are in practice just a figurehead, just existing to be a symbol of state and to relieve the prime minister of ceremonial duties. They are quite distinct from countries like France, which are semi-presidential systems and the president has a lot of powers. The fact of the matter is, the role of the president can be set out and defined by parliament. In the UK, seeing as the presidency would be a new office it would be very easy for parliament to set their boundaries as it sees fit. The notion of ending up with an 'interfering president' can't really be legitimately used to defend the retention of the monarchy. Becoming a republic would also be a good opportunity to finally write a constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 A small point on royal funding. The taxpayer does not really give the queen any money. The royal budget is met by the Sovereign Grant (I think it's called) since 2012. This means that out of the profits of the Crown Eatates the queen keeps 15% for running the royal family the other 85% goes to the treasury. I think in recent times the Sovereign grant is £40m which means about £240m is put into the economy by the monarchy. Or the Economy gains about £200m a year by us having a monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 How much of the £240m would still be received without the royal family? People come to see the buildings and royal gardens. People don't often get a royal hearing so the people to me aren't the big attraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe. Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 20 minutes ago, GboroRam said: How much of the £240m would still be received without the royal family? People come to see the buildings and royal gardens. People don't often get a royal hearing so the people to me aren't the big attraction. The profit of the crown estate is paid directly to the treasury, so doesn't include people coming to see the royal gardens or any tourism based income, rather it is the revenue from the property (something stupid like £10billion worth) it owns. Neither the government or the queen herself owns the crown estate but it belongs to the reigning monarch. Presumably if you got rid of the monarchy the royal family would take back their claim of ownership and would be much less inclined to give any of the revenue to the government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 hours ago, davenportram said: the Economy gains about £200m a year by us having a monarchy. .....and our credibility shrinks by an equal amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Joe. said: The profit of the crown estate is paid directly to the treasury, so doesn't include people coming to see the royal gardens or any tourism based income, rather it is the revenue from the property (something stupid like £10billion worth) it owns. Neither the government or the queen herself owns the crown estate but it belongs to the reigning monarch. Presumably if you got rid of the monarchy the royal family would take back their claim of ownership and would be much less inclined to give any of the revenue to the government We could always listen to their request. Preferably with cigarette and blindfold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.