Dian Wei wrote:I wasn't saying mine had either, just that you were acting like a dick in a topic that didn't require it.

I have to say that this place was sorely needing some serious discussion, as there are only so many topics consisting of "lol thrash" i can read in one day.

The Megadeth forums (unsurprisingly) are bloody brilliant for political discussion. That's where I go.

A case could even be made for the present Queen's value to the political system, although I'm not concerned to pursue it much - I don't refer to the technicalities of opening Parliament or reading the spoon-fed Queen's Speech, but to her substantial experience as an advisor and someone privy to the business of government for over half a century. Being a regular correspondent of TEN British Prime Ministers is nothing to sniff at, and perhaps an argument for the monarchs fulfilling more overseas diplomatic functions.

However, this is only a reflection on the current Queen and her experience; it obviously doesn't apply to any future holder of the title.

No future monarchs would have to be groomed into the role. But my view of them gaining more of a diplomats role would have to extend to the entire royal family, with the importance of the meeting meaning a meeting with a higher "ranking" member.

James wrote:A case could even be made for the present Queen's value to the political system, although I'm not concerned to pursue it much - I don't refer to the technicalities of opening Parliament or reading the spoon-fed Queen's Speech, but to her substantial experience as an advisor and someone privy to the business of government for over half a century. Being a regular correspondent of TEN British Prime Ministers is nothing to sniff at, and perhaps an argument for the monarchs fulfilling more overseas diplomatic functions.

But how privy was she? Do PMs really take her that seriously other than for the PR opportunities? She's hardly the most educated woman ever.

True, but experience is a pretty good teacher. She has been at it for a while.

Interesting idea of her being used purely as a PR tool though, that would be a fucking annoyance to me.

According to that Helen Mirren film, Blair had the hots for her.

She gets a red box of government papers every morning. Be as cynical as you want about her education or about things being kept from her, but I think after 50 years you'd expect someone to have a political head on their shoulders.

And anyway, how is a personal chat with the Queen every week a golden "PR" move on the PM's part??

James wrote:She gets a red box of government papers every morning. Be as cynical as you want about her education or about things being kept from her, but I think after 50 years you'd expect someone to have a political head on their shoulders.

And anyway, how is a personal chat with the Queen every week a golden "PR" move on the PM's part??

I'm just not sure how valid your point is when we could elect someone who's had active experience in politics.

Having a good relationship with the monarch is obviously good for PR.

I seem to have gotten here a bit late.

boovidge wrote:I find it quite strange that people who are very much into Heavy Metal are pro an institution which props up the class system in this country and also prevents us from being a truly secular state by upholding the religious institution of the Anglican church.

I'm suprised no one picked up on this earlier. What's that supposed to mean, that we're all scum or something? Generally the only people with a problem with the class system, I find, are in the lower classes because they're getting the short end of the stick. Class system is a pile of crap anyway, it's all in your head.

Basically the upper classes dislike the lower classes for being boarish and vile, and the lower classes dislike the upper classes for being arrogent and condescending. If we abolished the class system all the arrogent condescending people would dislike the boarish vile people for being boarish and vile, and the boarish vile people would hate the arrogent condescending people for being arrogent and condescending. Where's the difference? I was brought up in a middle class family but most of my mates are working class, so I am more like a working class person in terms of personality. I don't know of anyone who's ever judged me for coming from a middle class family, and I've never judged anyone for coming from a working class family.

MartinC wrote:People should be proud of this country, it's fucking mint. If you don't like it, piss off to some shite hole. There's so many things that are right with this country. Off the top of my head - the NHS.

I like the country, I just hate some of the people. It's actually a minority, but, unfortunately, it's the people that make themselves heard accross the world. It's people like the football hooligans that go out to Milan to watch Manchester United play them at football, and then trash the city when Man U lose. I dead to think what the rest of the world thinks of us. I mean, look at America, there's loads of great people there, interesting, intelligent people. But what are they known for? Being thick, thanks to fantastic public speakers such as George W Bush. This isn't a Bush basing, he's just the first one that came to mind.

TORSO wrote:What a lovely species we are....able to create such wonders and ultimate horror

That's why we think we're the greatest species. That's why the dolphins think they are too

STD_Caps wrote:I'm with the Boove and Lions!

Historically, our monarchy is not much to be proud of. And these days, whilst they are largely ceremonial, their are problems both with them ideologically and practically.

Ideology: It contradicts democracy and meritocracy. They are in a position of privilege through birth. This is not just in terms of economic status as is normal in our society. They are essentially positioned as 'our superiors'. This may not be, and I think isn't, the reality but it is essentially what the monarchy as an institution represent. That is is something that is, in my opinion, questionable and worthy of resistance.

Practically: Boovidge has passingly referred to (I think) the prerogative powers of the monarchy. Whilst these powers are historical and are not really used there are clear problems with an unelected leader selecting the government, rejecting laws or declaring war. As a minimum, these powers need to be formally removed. And they have been used. The Queen closed a court case against Paul Burrell a little while back (2002 or 2003) regarding him taking certain items. Due to his knowledge of unpleasant royal-related truths, British judicial courts could not do what they were meant to do. This is also questionable.

And let's be honest, an argument is pretty thin when it runs on a foundation of sentimentalism instead of logic. I can see why some don't give a shit, but to say 'It's the Queen! She's great!' or some such claptrap about some idolised tradition I just feel like shaking my head in disbelief.

Ralistically, everyone is born into a position of privilage or disadvantage in some way or other. Maybe not to the same extent mind, but look at say, Richard Branson's daughter. If he died tomorrow and left everything to her, she could live the rest of her life without working a single day and still be richer than all of us put together. That's a pretty cool privelage. Yeah, this is because her dad made something of himself, but how's that different to being born into the royal family? I can't remember the last time it happened but at some point someone killed the monarch and became the monarch themselves. Killing someone's not exactly the easiest task, especially when they're so heavily guarded all the time, or when there's a shitload of their army running at you on a battlefield.

As for the Paul Burrell thing, I'm not hot on the specifics of that and I can't be arsed to research it at 2am when I have a lecture at 9:15, but surely that's just revoking the charges? Any plaintiff can do that.

Generally I don't really see what difference having a monarch has to any of our lives directly. The way I see it is it's nice to have a figurehead for the country, something to be proud and patriotic about. A lot of countries have this. Statue of Liberty anyone? Yes the British conquered weaker countries unfairly and made the British Empire, but that was centuries ago, and it was at a time when that was basically the way things went. Had Britain not done that, some other country would almost definately have. Many advancements were made in technology and philosophy and various other subject areas in the British Empire, although probably not as many/large as those of the Roman Empire. Plus the British Empire basically freed all the countries and turned them into the British Commonwelth. Again, I'm not certain if I have the right handle on this, but the way I understand it is that we still have some presence over these countries, but with a MUCH looser grip on them, basically letting them get on with their own stuff. I know we seem to meddle with other countries' politics, which I personally have a basic disagreement with, but the way I see it is that the British govenment does this with good intentions to help.

Sorry for the massive post, I do love political discussions. I'm quite into (sensible) religious ones too, for some reason, if anyone fancies starting one.

Are you serious about the NHS Lions? I mean come on man, have you not used the NHS? Do you not take it for granted? The concept is actually bloody awesome, and the fact that it has lasted this long under so many governments is a triumph.

Yeh, it's falling apart a bit, but without it, we'd all be a lot poorer. All the NHS dentists went private where I live and we have to pay through the tooth for dental care now (BADOOM-TSH!). God bless the NHS I say, what what, I say.

thrashduck wrote:Are you serious about the NHS Lions? I mean come on man, have you not used the NHS? Do you not take it for granted? The concept is actually bloody awesome, and the fact that it has lasted this long under so many governments is a triumph.

Yeh, it's falling apart a bit, but without it, we'd all be a lot poorer. All the NHS dentists went private where I live and we have to pay through the tooth for dental care now (BADOOM-TSH!). God bless the NHS I say, what what, I say.

Speaking from someone who has both parents with 20+ years of experience working in the NHS yes, I am serious.

The idea is fantastic but it's current execution is so poor that it will probably collapse spectacularly.

thrashduck wrote:Are you serious about the NHS Lions? I mean come on man, have you not used the NHS? Do you not take it for granted? The concept is actually bloody awesome, and the fact that it has lasted this long under so many governments is a triumph.

Yeh, it's falling apart a bit, but without it, we'd all be a lot poorer. All the NHS dentists went private where I live and we have to pay through the tooth for dental care now (BADOOM-TSH!). God bless the NHS I say, what what, I say.

Ah man. I agree with you, but after that pun I feel bad for it!

Seriously though, beats paying for it. How'd you like to pay £2000 to have your broken leg fixed? What happens if you don't have that much?

Styxx wrote:I seem to have gotten here a bit late.

boovidge wrote:I find it quite strange that people who are very much into Heavy Metal are pro an institution which props up the class system in this country and also prevents us from being a truly secular state by upholding the religious institution of the Anglican church.

I'm suprised no one picked up on this earlier. What's that supposed to mean, that we're all scum or something? Generally the only people with a problem with the class system, I find, are in the lower classes because they're getting the short end of the stick. Class system is a pile of crap anyway, it's all in your head.

Basically the upper classes dislike the lower classes for being boarish and vile, and the lower classes dislike the upper classes for being arrogent and condescending. If we abolished the class system all the arrogent condescending people would dislike the boarish vile people for being boarish and vile, and the boarish vile people would hate the arrogent condescending people for being arrogent and condescending. Where's the difference? I was brought up in a middle class family but most of my mates are working class, so I am more like a working class person in terms of personality. I don't know of anyone who's ever judged me for coming from a middle class family, and I've never judged anyone for coming from a working class family.

i was referring to the aristocracy not middle/working class rivalries. I'm not a bitter socialist either. I, like many if not most people on this forum was brought up very comfortably.

You said that the Empire was 'centuries ago'. To give one example the British killed 300,000 people in Kenya fifty years ago. Also to suggest that Britain freed her colonies voluntarily is riciculous and somewhat insulting to the thousands of people who fought against British imperialism.

I also think people judge us more on our history and refusal to accept its gravity rather than a football hooligan problem that reached its peak 20 years ago and has since declined into relative obscurity especially compared to other nations.

Regarding the Empire, as regarding a lot of historical issues, I feel more of a general 'interest' than any surge of emotion either way. It is always nice to look back to a golden past, and to be honest, living in Britain c.1900 would have been bloody awesome if you were looking for things to celebrate about this country. But yes, with the good came the bad, and things happened that could never be condoned by modern society.

As brutal as it may sound, I have to say, imperialism was inevitable, and ultimately an example of survival of the fittest. The British didn't set out to "conquer" anywhere - we established very small trading posts on the coasts of places like India and Africa, and tried to make them as profitable as possible. This evolved to mean gradually meddling in local politics, until in some areas Britain had the clout and vision to take over from local elites. Hence the East India Company assumed a governmental role, eventually with its own army and civil service. That is not a conquest, except an economic one!

Equally inevitable is the colonisation of somewhere like Australia. I know it is quite shameful what the Aborigines had to go through, but they were NEVER going to have Australia for themselves once the developed world discovered it. It's simply a case of expansion and survival of the fittest (meaning economically/technologically advanced in this case).

You could even say the British Empire was considerably more covert than Empires like the French, which used a lot more direct rule rather than the indirect rule keeping local elites in place as pawns that the British did. I think Britain was one of the first countries to abolish slavery as well, long before the French. Of course that doesn't mean much, except as a bit of a comparison.