I don't like Charlie. His fat sausage fingers knock me ill. William seems a decent guy but a right boring ****er. They should raffle the monarchy. Let one of us scruffs have a go.
I honestly don't see the point of the monarchy. The usual arguments "they bring in tourists" (no they're coming to see the monuments and palaces). "They own the crown estate so would hurt the UK" (no the Crown Estate belongs to the UK, in exchange for the country paying former royal gambling debts). The royal family are just parasites living off society and feeding red top papers.
This It's an outdated institution that belongs back in the 17th Century. I'm all for having an elected head of state, who would have constitutional powers and the ability to reign in the PM. And I would even be open to the idea of keeping Monarch as head of state, as long as the rest of the family were binned off in terms of holding Royal status and all of the (taxpayer paid) trappings that come with it Oh and yes, the pay off Noncey Andrew has paid, would indirectly come from us, as the Royal family's assets originally came from land and property that was 'given' to them and from which they draw substantial income from to this day. The Queen is also paid the Sovereign Grant from taxpayers money, from which Noncey Andrew has been getting £250k per year from along with money from the Duchy of Lancashire. He's also been given some properties by the Queen, which has seen him amass a net worth of around £35m So yes, in a nutshell. Noncey Andrew's sordid behaviour has been bought off using our money
If we had an elected head of state at one stage it could have been Tony Blair - be careful what you wish for .
If he only had limited powers, so what? Does Prince Charles (who, when he was younger once said Britain's forces should be mercenaries for other countries during peacetime) sound a better option than one who is elected? You can get a bad head of state no matter how they're chosen, the trick is not making them too powerful.
I'd rather have an elected head of state than one who's there by succession due to being in the 'right' family. And if you did elect a bad one, at least people would have the democratic right to elect somebody else.
if they have no power just a constitutional role whats the point of in going to the effort of electing someone in what will just be a popularity contest .
The elections in Russia are about as bent as they come They don't even hide the fact that they imprison and poison opposition leaders.
It doesn't have to be ceremonial, just limit the power. No one should have too much power in any system.
Do you think non-elected leaders are better? Saddam? The Kim's of North Korea? The house of Saud? You can get bad leaders no matter how you choose them. I'd rather one elected than hereditary. At least with elected officials you can boot them out when you've had enough of their crap.
So why leak many millions of £ away each year on them? Surely better to just say, "thank you and goodbye" to them.
pah millions aint worth getting out of bed for mate never mind the grief constitutional change might cause .
In the settlement he has had to state that: 1. She had suffered abused 2. That he never meant to malign her character 3. That she has suffered from unfair public attacks And 4. She was brave to stand up against sexual attacks on herself and others. Maybe this huge climb down (from the **** he has been spouting) meant she has been vindicated and didn't wanna risk being humiliated in court like many are when they accuse people of abusing them.
