defo NO!
out of date out of sinc and out of here ASAP
steve

[Edited by stephen emery - 3/30/2002 11:49:18 PM]

 

Agree with you but the timing is way off m8.

 

With both of you on that

 

maybe but all i seem to see from radio, tv and papers at the moment is how great things are , and yes timing maybe a bit off but is it not times such as this when one should look at the structure of the country!
steve

 

Yes.

[Edited by LeeMac - 3/30/2002 11:42:05 PM]

 

I think you will find that chronic short sightedness on the part of successive governments, allied with terminal apathy on the part of the voting population is the major reason the country is the third world ****hole it is today.

To blame it on a symbolic figurehead, who does more for the tourist industry in this country than his royal toniness and his cattle-killing cronies will ever do if they live to be a thousand, is missing the mark by a vast margin, methinks.

 

Sink?

 

Just my opinion (with my moderator hat off !!), but I think we should leave this discussion for another time as a mark of respect.

Stuart

[Edited by sasim - 3/30/2002 11:49:21 PM]

 

I'm with you on that one.

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. 1900-2002 Rest in peace.

 

so just listen, watch all the propogranda without saying a word.
think this tourist thing is misguided to say the least.
Paris America royals No
me thinks we have alot more than a royal family!!
close the royals down and show people around all of royal building
for startes!
steve

 

She has given more than she took. It is a shame the World has lost its most Loved "Granny".

But as for the rest of the 2.nd layer royals (Note small "r") get rid of them.

 

She has given more than she took. It is a shame the World has lost its most Loved "Granny".

But as for the rest of the 2.nd layer royals (Note small "r") get rid of them.

 

As long as the royal family brings in more than it takes out then surely its good for the country. They are also a major part or our history, culture etc.

If you want to get rid of anything in this country then get rid of all these so called bloody asylum seekers. Now that would bring about a good saving .

Chip.

 

The money the taxpayer spends on the royals may seem a lot but it is utter chickenfeed when compared to the budget of even the smallest government department. Getting rid of them wouldn't save any significant money and they would have to be replaced with another head of state - yes you guessed it - MORE BLOODY POLITICIANS: President and first lady Blair anyone? God forbid. And we all know how much politicians and their bureaucracies cost so it would end up costing the taxpayers more.

You cannot justify exercising petty, outdated, vindictive class jealousies with the economic argument.

 

..NO............

......no disrespect to the old lady,101 is impressive whoever you are.......but the idea of an heriditary head of state is way past its sell by date.

 

no it isnt. The Royals should stay. The royals will stay too. Look at the alternatives:
President Blair being the head of state????
**** THAT!!!!!
If there was a revolution and I had the choice, I know who would go up against the wall.
astraboy.
Besides, Zara is as fit as a butchers

 

If even a handful of people gave up the time and commitment to helping others, it would be a better place.

She was the epitomy of dedication and dignity.

Whatever your views on the future of the monarchy this is a pretty crass time to start the debate.

Deano