Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

So the French have parasites too.

The Queen lives in a house owned by the state (a bit like a council house then) but she doesn't pay bedroom tax.

On the TV some feminist was saying it was disgraceful as the country was now faced with having three white male monarchs for the next hundred years. Well for most of my life I have lived under a white female monarch and I haven't moaned about it once but then I am not a feminist and lets be honest they moan about every bloody thing.

A woman in the pub last night said she wanted William to be the next king as she didn't like that Charles and Camilla.

I suggested we have a show on the telly called Britain's got Royalty and we can all phone in and vote for who we want to be our next Monarch.

I took one look at the Times as it lay on the doormat this morning and it went straight in the recycling bin.

I said to the very lovely Mrs Godders that she had booked our holiday a month too early and that we should have been out of the country now.

I hope they decide to call this brat Wayne. That should scupper his life chances or enhance them for every other little blighter named Wayne.

I am starting a campaign for a Free Wessex including the IoW but not Portsea Island. It would be an independent state and all the DFL types and toffs would be kicked out as would all monarchists and supporters of Arsenal, Man City, ManU, Liverpool and Chelsea. There would be a new head of state each day selected by lottery from the whole population. There would be no second homes and the hospitals would have really lovely caring nurses. There would be no bankers, pay day loan companies or estate agents. Finally every one would be equal and all Feminists would be banished as they want everything to favour women and do not believe in equality for all.

My new and free and independent Wessex would be a veritable Utopia.

 

I can agree with that.

 

Please enrol me and may I propose CBK as President

 

Good response. Fair play.

 

While I naturally feel a sense of uneasiness at the fact that this newborn boy is to be born as superior to the rest of us, there's probably far more important issues to think about. I'm a strong believer in everyone being born as equals, and the Royal Family is clearly in stark contrast to this. Nevertheless, it could certainly be argued that this is for our greater good. By having the Royal Family, our economy is boosted by greater levels than it is depleted through our funding of the Royal Family (a.k.a. the world's greatest benefit scroungers in the world's greatest council house).



The amount we spend annually on the Royal Family is £36.1m. Say we were to redistribute that money, each person would get an extra 50p annually. If we were to invest in in schools or hospitals, the impact would still be negligible on a nationwide scale.

On the other hand, we are spending £3bn a year on Trident. This is our nuclear weapons scheme, aimed at waging war on nobody in particular. While there may be a sense of injustice in the Royal Family taking tens of millions every year from the state, the magnitude is nothing when compared with Trident. The amount spent on the Royal Family is barely over 1% of that spend on Trident each year.


There's certainly a point to be made in abolishing the Royal Family, but there's conversely a strong point to be made in support of keeping them for the sake of our economy. However, there are other elements of the state, such as Trident, which seem to represent a far more pressing need to clamp down on.

 

If you don't have a Royal family, you have to have a President (and they aren't cheap). President's have had to make a lot of promises to get where they are...these things have a habit of coming home to roost. They also belong to one party or another, so are more likely to be divisive. I was taught at school that it isn't the power that the monarch has, it's the power they deny anyone else. One of the few things that I remember from civics class.

 

Eire has a President. It is an honorary appointment for a limited time. I'd like the same situation here. There's no need for Monarchy, that raises one single family over everybody else, or an American style President either.

 

Gerado Martino has been appointed Barcelona manager. They must be the only big club not to appoint a big name!

 

The question shouldn't be whether the Monarchy are costing the country money or whether they bring in money for the economy, it should be that the idea of a Royal Family in a modern, democratic country the size and importance of the UK is relevant in the 21st century. The answer to that question in my mind is definately no, if the Human race is to keep evolving and moving forward, then surely there isn't a need for an undemocratic figurehead that is put in place by birthright.

 

I like that. Hadn't heard that or thought of it quite like that before.

A lot of (if not all) people are generally quite selfish and individuals will do their best to make things better for themselves and possibly their family and friends and financial backers. As a result, I suspect every form of government will end up "corrupt" in some way.

I actually quite like the government by lottery idea Godders suggests (or sortition as it's properly known) but even then someone is responsible for the administration of the lottery. Who decides which names go into the hat? Presumably you exclude the insane and those in prison but what about previously convicted criminals? Should there be a minimum level of education to become a "candidate"?

 

Who used to be a teammate of Pochettino's

 

Absolutely..! The principal alone is enough for the need to change.

 

The whole point of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent. Get rid of them, and we'd have basically zero power on a global scale.

 

Change for the sake of change is stupid.

 

Haven't seen someone refer to Ireland as Eire for about 15 years

 

Saving my keyboard.

 

If we're going to talk about outdated, inappropriate and continually abusive uses of undemocratic power in the 21st century, I'd rather we dealt with religion than a fairly harmless national mascot first.....

 

Should have used ROI then.

 

It isn't change for the sake of change. The principle is that society has outgrown the Monarchy. There is absolutely no need for the institution, and while there are people in the UK and indeed the World, where there is barely any shelter, food, hope and health, that institution is also morally reprehensible. An elected figurehead, of an ordinary person, such as the model that Ireland [got the message, GBS] chooses, should be far more acceptable to the ordinary person.

Look, I don't want any harm to come to the Royal Family. I'm not after revolution. Choose a Castle or Palaces, etc... and shut the door. I don't want to hear about them anymore because they remind me of the hierarchical, class ridden society that they need to have maintained and needs to be got rid of. I want to see an end to the fawning, the bowing and scraping. It's not required anymore, we've moved on in society. If you treat the Royal family with respect, then you must treat every law abiding citizen of the UK with the same respect, whatever their social position and education. It is fundamentally wrong to have this institution.

It's not change for change sake. It is change to right a fundamental wrong.

 

Jeez Beefy's has been taken over.