The Queen pays no inheritance tax....
09 May 2002, 12:15 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would all those who believe the Monarchy an inappropriate form of Head of State please explain very clearly ('cos I'm a bit thick) exactly how an alternative would work. To change something, you have to change it to something else, hopefully which is better.
As I see it...
Option 1) Elected head of State (e.g. France). head of State still costs. Elections arent cheap. Royal properties would still have to be maintainted as dead musuems rather than living working buildings. Who do we elect ? Evidence would suggest an ex-prime minister (or other senior politician). Options would be for us something like Neil Kinnock, Margaret Thatcher, Norman Lamont, Ted Heath, hmmm Not very imspiring list is it. Total Net Gain - Loss of some tourism (The number of americans peering at Buck House every day is not a myth, they can actually be seen) Small saving on civil list, equal expenditure on has-been politician doing many of the same things.
2) Prime-Minster becomes head-of-state (e.g. America)
Most of the same gains/losses as above. We have to create many many new procedures to ensure the "President" is kept in check. creating no doubt many many more jobs to be handed out to peoples friends in Westminster.
Either way, I'm supposed to suddenly feel a better person because I've been empowered to choose the head of state. Well so many of the population regularly feel able to pass on the oppurtunity to empower themselves to choose those they elect that this hardly seems a massively popular driver.
If people want change - explain and persuade those of us who dont why its better your way. Simply to use terms such as "parasite" or "leech" isnt a debate - its insults. Who you would choose as an alternative is exactly the point. To change simply for changes sake (as per so much of new Labours policys) can leave a far bigger mess/problem than the status quo.
Deano (Genuinely intrigued to see a workable alternative described which provides a big enough net benefit to win people over)
As I see it...
Option 1) Elected head of State (e.g. France). head of State still costs. Elections arent cheap. Royal properties would still have to be maintainted as dead musuems rather than living working buildings. Who do we elect ? Evidence would suggest an ex-prime minister (or other senior politician). Options would be for us something like Neil Kinnock, Margaret Thatcher, Norman Lamont, Ted Heath, hmmm Not very imspiring list is it. Total Net Gain - Loss of some tourism (The number of americans peering at Buck House every day is not a myth, they can actually be seen) Small saving on civil list, equal expenditure on has-been politician doing many of the same things.
2) Prime-Minster becomes head-of-state (e.g. America)
Most of the same gains/losses as above. We have to create many many new procedures to ensure the "President" is kept in check. creating no doubt many many more jobs to be handed out to peoples friends in Westminster.
Either way, I'm supposed to suddenly feel a better person because I've been empowered to choose the head of state. Well so many of the population regularly feel able to pass on the oppurtunity to empower themselves to choose those they elect that this hardly seems a massively popular driver.
If people want change - explain and persuade those of us who dont why its better your way. Simply to use terms such as "parasite" or "leech" isnt a debate - its insults. Who you would choose as an alternative is exactly the point. To change simply for changes sake (as per so much of new Labours policys) can leave a far bigger mess/problem than the status quo.
Deano (Genuinely intrigued to see a workable alternative described which provides a big enough net benefit to win people over)
09 May 2002, 12:27 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Watched Ch4 news tonite and this came on surprisingly. Anyway, it seems that £20m is buger all in comparison to what the tax payer gets from the royals in income, council & capital gains tax. It's not as if the stuff that is subject to tax is cash. It's all jewellry and pictures etc which are all part of the nations treasures anyway and if they were subject to tax would just on display somewhere else other than the royals collection. Maybe people should get all the details before making a call.
Steve
(flame suit on)
Steve
(flame suit on)
09 May 2002, 10:00 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Royal family generate far more cash than they would pay in Tax. Inheritance or anything else. Lets just call it comission!!!!!!
Did they include all costs (upkeep of various palaces, staff, security, police etc etc etc)?
This is one of these quotes bandied around freely with no backup.
I also hear the biggest cause of accidents is speeding.
09 May 2002, 10:02 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the hassle they cause when they want to go anywhere or bury some old granny !! Frigging nuisance if you ask me !!
I dont want London closed down just so they can move around with a gazillion police guard etc ...
I dont want London closed down just so they can move around with a gazillion police guard etc ...
09 May 2002, 10:56 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always been anti monarchy and was outraged when I heard this, but.......
a tory (traditionally anti inheritance tax) politician made a point which convinced me she shouldnt pay the tax.
She isnt inheriting cash, she is inheriting more national treasures such as homes and art works, all of which are already considered national treasures and as such cannot be sold, as they represent part of the national heritage.
So the queen inherits a load of stuff she had any, that belongs to the crown, with which she can do nothing but maintain. And for the unexpected privilege you has to come up with £20 million in cash.
You can say that in the same position and subject would have to pay, but in the same position, any subject would be in a position to sell the inherited stuff and net a profit. The queen however cannot due to the nature of the inheritance and her position.
a tory (traditionally anti inheritance tax) politician made a point which convinced me she shouldnt pay the tax.
She isnt inheriting cash, she is inheriting more national treasures such as homes and art works, all of which are already considered national treasures and as such cannot be sold, as they represent part of the national heritage.
So the queen inherits a load of stuff she had any, that belongs to the crown, with which she can do nothing but maintain. And for the unexpected privilege you has to come up with £20 million in cash.
You can say that in the same position and subject would have to pay, but in the same position, any subject would be in a position to sell the inherited stuff and net a profit. The queen however cannot due to the nature of the inheritance and her position.
09 May 2002, 11:29 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth 
Increasing democracy is the most important and powerful reason to ditch the monarchy by far. All other reasons either follow on from it or pale in comparison to the strength of the argument.
The word democracy is ultimately derived from the Greek demokratia which is a term comprised of demos - ‘the people’ - and kratos - ‘strength, power.’ So, democracy basically means that power lies in the hands of the people. In most developed countries, this entails the direct election of a legislative (Parliament) and an elected Head of State (whether ceremonial or with full-fledged executive powers). Unfortunately, Britain has lagged behind other developed countries in both these areas. Our Head of State (the Queen) and, until recently, the majority of the House of Lords assumed power and influence solely because of which families they were born in to. This makes Britain a relatively undemocratic country in an increasingly democratic world.
Rule by inheritance in general makes no sense and cannot be justified nowadays. To have the title of Head of State passed on through heridity is just ridiculous. The Monarchy is unaccountable, secretive, unrepresentative, illogical, and anachronistic. Not enviable qualities in the twenty-first century. A modern, forward-looking state needs an elected Head of State - not least because this represents a symbol of the country's intentions and essential character.
Having a popularly elected President would confer the following democratic benefits on Britain:
Fairness and equality - everybody that is a British citizen should have the opportunity to vote for and stand for election to the office of Head of State. This would make the Head of State more representative in both senses of the word. Plus, the setting of a fixed term of office (say five years) would minimise the President's utilisation of short-term favourable conditions to their advantage. This applies to both a ceremonial President and a fully fledged executive.
Increased Openness - the election and day-to-day work of the President would be open to public and Parliamentary scrutiny. Action could be taken to prevent and/or censure unacceptable behaviour. The President would be able to openly express political views as well (even if only ceremonial - the President would be a citizen like you or I). This would prevent the current sham whereby certain members of the Royal Family express their views on political matters despite their protestations that they are politically neutral.
Accountability - if the behaviour or actions of the President were deemed to be unnacceptable or illegal (i.e. contravened a law or an article of a written constitution), then the Head of State would be prosecuted and/or replaced through popular elections. NB the current legal position of the Royal Family with regards to prosecution is somewhat hazy. But even if they are not immune from prosecution, it's extremely unlikely that they would face criminal charges for anything other than the most serious of crimes. They are very well protected.
On the theme of royal protection, even British law helps to keep their positions safe. The 1848 Treason Felony Act makes it a serious offence to publish an article advocating the abolition of the monarchy. Technically then, this web site contravenes the law, even though I'm solely proposing non-violent means of establishing a republic. Just how ridiculous is it in this modern age that we have such a law in the statute book? Why should it still be technically illegal to support a republic in print? Freedom of speech, anyone?..
Ideally, what I would like is an elected President who performs ceremonial duties and represents Britain abroad in a cost-effective and modern manner. The Prime Minister should still have significant powers. The rights, powers and duties of the President, the Prime Minister, Parliament, the judiciary, and British citizens, should be clearly laid out in a codified constitution that all in elected office and in the military should swear to uphold. Sovereignty should be in the hands of the people. That's democracy.
IMHO
Increasing democracy is the most important and powerful reason to ditch the monarchy by far. All other reasons either follow on from it or pale in comparison to the strength of the argument.
The word democracy is ultimately derived from the Greek demokratia which is a term comprised of demos - ‘the people’ - and kratos - ‘strength, power.’ So, democracy basically means that power lies in the hands of the people. In most developed countries, this entails the direct election of a legislative (Parliament) and an elected Head of State (whether ceremonial or with full-fledged executive powers). Unfortunately, Britain has lagged behind other developed countries in both these areas. Our Head of State (the Queen) and, until recently, the majority of the House of Lords assumed power and influence solely because of which families they were born in to. This makes Britain a relatively undemocratic country in an increasingly democratic world.
Rule by inheritance in general makes no sense and cannot be justified nowadays. To have the title of Head of State passed on through heridity is just ridiculous. The Monarchy is unaccountable, secretive, unrepresentative, illogical, and anachronistic. Not enviable qualities in the twenty-first century. A modern, forward-looking state needs an elected Head of State - not least because this represents a symbol of the country's intentions and essential character.
Having a popularly elected President would confer the following democratic benefits on Britain:
Fairness and equality - everybody that is a British citizen should have the opportunity to vote for and stand for election to the office of Head of State. This would make the Head of State more representative in both senses of the word. Plus, the setting of a fixed term of office (say five years) would minimise the President's utilisation of short-term favourable conditions to their advantage. This applies to both a ceremonial President and a fully fledged executive.
Increased Openness - the election and day-to-day work of the President would be open to public and Parliamentary scrutiny. Action could be taken to prevent and/or censure unacceptable behaviour. The President would be able to openly express political views as well (even if only ceremonial - the President would be a citizen like you or I). This would prevent the current sham whereby certain members of the Royal Family express their views on political matters despite their protestations that they are politically neutral.
Accountability - if the behaviour or actions of the President were deemed to be unnacceptable or illegal (i.e. contravened a law or an article of a written constitution), then the Head of State would be prosecuted and/or replaced through popular elections. NB the current legal position of the Royal Family with regards to prosecution is somewhat hazy. But even if they are not immune from prosecution, it's extremely unlikely that they would face criminal charges for anything other than the most serious of crimes. They are very well protected.
On the theme of royal protection, even British law helps to keep their positions safe. The 1848 Treason Felony Act makes it a serious offence to publish an article advocating the abolition of the monarchy. Technically then, this web site contravenes the law, even though I'm solely proposing non-violent means of establishing a republic. Just how ridiculous is it in this modern age that we have such a law in the statute book? Why should it still be technically illegal to support a republic in print? Freedom of speech, anyone?..
Ideally, what I would like is an elected President who performs ceremonial duties and represents Britain abroad in a cost-effective and modern manner. The Prime Minister should still have significant powers. The rights, powers and duties of the President, the Prime Minister, Parliament, the judiciary, and British citizens, should be clearly laid out in a codified constitution that all in elected office and in the military should swear to uphold. Sovereignty should be in the hands of the people. That's democracy.
IMHO
09 May 2002, 11:32 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prince Philip's great lines :
May 2002 - Phil ensures that the Windsor's Golden Jubilee tour of Britain starts appropriately. Upon confronting a visually impaired, wheelchair bound lady and her guide dog, he joshes: “Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?” Stan Boardman must be worried about losing the title of Most Offensive Man in Britain.
March 2002 - Liz and Phil travel to Australia as part of the Golden Jubilee “World Tour” (any T-shirts available?!). After taking in a performance by an Aboriginal dance troop, Phil wisely avoids racial stereotypes by deftly asking an Aboriginal leader, “Do you still throw spears at each other?” Yeah, that'll help the monarchists down under.
August 1999 - whilst being shown around a high-tech electronics factory in Edinburgh, Phil notices a fuse box that's less advanced than other equipment that's around. So naturally, the completely unbigoted and misunderstood Duke automatically says, “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” Thereby offending an entire sub-continent.
May 1999 - Phil visits the new Welsh Assembly, eventually coming across a group from the British Deaf Association. Upon seeing some young people with hearing impairments standing near a band, the Duke remarks: “Deaf? If you are near there [the music], no wonder you are deaf.” What an enlightened and educated man he is, eh?
October 1997 - there's something about India and Indians with Phil. On an official visit to Jallianwala Bagh and the ‘Flame of Liberty’ (a memorial to unarmed men, women and children who were butchered by General Reginald Dyer's British forces in 1919), the Duke reportedly said the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy was “vastly exaggerated.”
1996 - Phil makes an entirely perspicacious, intelligent and sensitive comment during the gun debate that follows the Dunblane massacre: “There's no evidence that people who use weapons for sport are any more dangerous than people who use golf clubs or tennis rackets or cricket bats.” And I'm certain the people of Dunblane share your views.
1995 - never one to rely on stereotypes, Phil asks a Scottish driving instructor: “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?”
1994 - everybody knows that questioning a person's parentage is never a polite thing to do, well, except good ol' Phil. During a spell in the Cayman Islands he asks a local: “Aren't most of you descended from pirates?”
1993 - Phil tells a Brit in Hungary: “You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly.”
1993 - Phil visits Lockerbie, scene of the Pan Am air disaster, where eleven locals died (killed by wreckage) along with those on board. For some strange reason, the locals are offended when Phil says: “People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still trying to dry out Windsor Castle.” Insensitive, inappropriate and idiot are three words that spring to mind.
1992 - animal lover Phil declines to even touch one of Australia's most loved species, the Koala bear: “Oh no, I might catch some ghastly disease.”
1986 - on a tour of China, Phil single-handedly tries to end Sino-British diplomatic relations. He describes Beijing as “ghastly” and told a group of British students: “If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed.”
1986 - whilst it's true to say that the people of Hong Kong and China choose their ingredients from a wider selection than us, Phil oversteps the mark during a World Wildlife Fund conference: “If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”
1984 - upon being presented with a gift from a very obviously female Kenyan the ever gracious and courteous Phil inquires: “You are a woman, aren't you?”
1981 - at the peak of the recession, Phil sensitively jokes that: “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.”
1969 - Welsh national treasure Tom “I've had more knickers thrown at me than I've had hot dinners” Jones is asked by the Duke if he “gargled with pebbles” after a turn at the Royal Variety Performance.
1966 - who's left for Phil to offend? Ah, yes - women: “British women can't cook.” Admittedly, that comment is a little more tame than the rest, but this was 1966, Phil was just warming up back then.
This just shows that this guy in particular is 'not a man of the people' as the rest of the royals are not !
May 2002 - Phil ensures that the Windsor's Golden Jubilee tour of Britain starts appropriately. Upon confronting a visually impaired, wheelchair bound lady and her guide dog, he joshes: “Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?” Stan Boardman must be worried about losing the title of Most Offensive Man in Britain.
March 2002 - Liz and Phil travel to Australia as part of the Golden Jubilee “World Tour” (any T-shirts available?!). After taking in a performance by an Aboriginal dance troop, Phil wisely avoids racial stereotypes by deftly asking an Aboriginal leader, “Do you still throw spears at each other?” Yeah, that'll help the monarchists down under.
August 1999 - whilst being shown around a high-tech electronics factory in Edinburgh, Phil notices a fuse box that's less advanced than other equipment that's around. So naturally, the completely unbigoted and misunderstood Duke automatically says, “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” Thereby offending an entire sub-continent.
May 1999 - Phil visits the new Welsh Assembly, eventually coming across a group from the British Deaf Association. Upon seeing some young people with hearing impairments standing near a band, the Duke remarks: “Deaf? If you are near there [the music], no wonder you are deaf.” What an enlightened and educated man he is, eh?
October 1997 - there's something about India and Indians with Phil. On an official visit to Jallianwala Bagh and the ‘Flame of Liberty’ (a memorial to unarmed men, women and children who were butchered by General Reginald Dyer's British forces in 1919), the Duke reportedly said the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy was “vastly exaggerated.”
1996 - Phil makes an entirely perspicacious, intelligent and sensitive comment during the gun debate that follows the Dunblane massacre: “There's no evidence that people who use weapons for sport are any more dangerous than people who use golf clubs or tennis rackets or cricket bats.” And I'm certain the people of Dunblane share your views.
1995 - never one to rely on stereotypes, Phil asks a Scottish driving instructor: “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?”
1994 - everybody knows that questioning a person's parentage is never a polite thing to do, well, except good ol' Phil. During a spell in the Cayman Islands he asks a local: “Aren't most of you descended from pirates?”
1993 - Phil tells a Brit in Hungary: “You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly.”
1993 - Phil visits Lockerbie, scene of the Pan Am air disaster, where eleven locals died (killed by wreckage) along with those on board. For some strange reason, the locals are offended when Phil says: “People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still trying to dry out Windsor Castle.” Insensitive, inappropriate and idiot are three words that spring to mind.
1992 - animal lover Phil declines to even touch one of Australia's most loved species, the Koala bear: “Oh no, I might catch some ghastly disease.”
1986 - on a tour of China, Phil single-handedly tries to end Sino-British diplomatic relations. He describes Beijing as “ghastly” and told a group of British students: “If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed.”
1986 - whilst it's true to say that the people of Hong Kong and China choose their ingredients from a wider selection than us, Phil oversteps the mark during a World Wildlife Fund conference: “If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”
1984 - upon being presented with a gift from a very obviously female Kenyan the ever gracious and courteous Phil inquires: “You are a woman, aren't you?”
1981 - at the peak of the recession, Phil sensitively jokes that: “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.”
1969 - Welsh national treasure Tom “I've had more knickers thrown at me than I've had hot dinners” Jones is asked by the Duke if he “gargled with pebbles” after a turn at the Royal Variety Performance.
1966 - who's left for Phil to offend? Ah, yes - women: “British women can't cook.” Admittedly, that comment is a little more tame than the rest, but this was 1966, Phil was just warming up back then.
This just shows that this guy in particular is 'not a man of the people' as the rest of the royals are not !
09 May 2002, 11:37 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just seen this post.
no inheritance tax is paid because they are exempted by an act of parliament made more than 60 years ago. if you don't like it then tough, it was legislated for by your own elected chamber you republican ***. get a life.
09 May 2002, 11:43 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like a grown up debate, especially when a child joins in and just hurls insults.
I have all of the above thanks
do you ?We, 'the people', should be sovereign, not the offspring of one family retained at public expense to occupy the top job in our system, permanently.
[Edited by carpet - 5/9/2002 11:46:06 AM]
09 May 2002, 01:51 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite right that the Queen doesn't pay inheritance tax. What is wrong is that the rest of us do.
Its bad enough paying tax on all the income we earn and again on everything that we spend it one. So what happens next? We pay again on everything we've accumulated when we die. Inheritance tax is one of the most unfair taxes around and should be abolished!!
Thats my twopenneth anyway.
Its bad enough paying tax on all the income we earn and again on everything that we spend it one. So what happens next? We pay again on everything we've accumulated when we die. Inheritance tax is one of the most unfair taxes around and should be abolished!!
Thats my twopenneth anyway.
09 May 2002, 02:30 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for reform - but only if its well thought out.
Take the House of Lords. We now have a ridiculous half way house - where the prime minister (of whichever party) is free to fill the upper chamber with nominated people to suit his needs. - truly farcial. The good active hereditary peers used to be remarkably good at stopping bad legislation simply because they owed nobody anything for their presence. I can undertand those that felt it needed reform and an elected upper house to oversee the elected lower house. I cant imagine anyone thinks the current state of the House of Lords is "a good thing".
If cost is truly the main driver for some for a change then the "cost of change" itself should be honestly looked out. I obviously have no figures but the amount of fundamental change that removal of the monarchy would require in almost every facet of the Judicary, Government, Miltary etc would be huge would I'm sure itself cover the cost of the Monarchy for many many years.
The rest is down to personal belief.
I see the Monarchy has the guarantors of an existing very strong democracy and the Monarchy (the instution rather than any specifc current members of the family) is indeed a symbol of the essential character of the country. I believe its possible to be both forward looking and still appreciate the history that has made the country what it is (for better or worse). If we feel that to go forward we must shut ourselves off from the past we will sooner or later make the same mitsakes over and over again.
I personally cant get my head round the concept that I should feel better represented/empowered/more worthwile etc. simply because an elected has-been politician goes and shakes the hand of a visiting dignitary rather than the Monarch.
The thought of more "elected" politicians either as Head-Of-State or regional assemblies fills me with deep deep sceptism. I feel we see so few politicians now who genuinely seem to be doing what they're doing in the real belief thats its for the benefit of us - the people - rather than just part of some great points scoring game that to beleive we can find more is optimistic in the extreme.
Deano.
P.s. have no argument that Prince Philip can be a bit if an **** who should keep his trap shut at all. But I also see the individual as separate from the institution that is "the Monarchy".
Take the House of Lords. We now have a ridiculous half way house - where the prime minister (of whichever party) is free to fill the upper chamber with nominated people to suit his needs. - truly farcial. The good active hereditary peers used to be remarkably good at stopping bad legislation simply because they owed nobody anything for their presence. I can undertand those that felt it needed reform and an elected upper house to oversee the elected lower house. I cant imagine anyone thinks the current state of the House of Lords is "a good thing".
If cost is truly the main driver for some for a change then the "cost of change" itself should be honestly looked out. I obviously have no figures but the amount of fundamental change that removal of the monarchy would require in almost every facet of the Judicary, Government, Miltary etc would be huge would I'm sure itself cover the cost of the Monarchy for many many years.
The rest is down to personal belief.
I see the Monarchy has the guarantors of an existing very strong democracy and the Monarchy (the instution rather than any specifc current members of the family) is indeed a symbol of the essential character of the country. I believe its possible to be both forward looking and still appreciate the history that has made the country what it is (for better or worse). If we feel that to go forward we must shut ourselves off from the past we will sooner or later make the same mitsakes over and over again.
I personally cant get my head round the concept that I should feel better represented/empowered/more worthwile etc. simply because an elected has-been politician goes and shakes the hand of a visiting dignitary rather than the Monarch.
The thought of more "elected" politicians either as Head-Of-State or regional assemblies fills me with deep deep sceptism. I feel we see so few politicians now who genuinely seem to be doing what they're doing in the real belief thats its for the benefit of us - the people - rather than just part of some great points scoring game that to beleive we can find more is optimistic in the extreme.
Deano.
P.s. have no argument that Prince Philip can be a bit if an **** who should keep his trap shut at all. But I also see the individual as separate from the institution that is "the Monarchy".
09 May 2002, 02:54 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must say I do agree with inheritance tax being a con and it should be scrapped. Either way if you believe in a republic or anarchaic monarchy where you get a priveliged lifestyle cos of your german family roots or not is up to the individual.
I just think it would be fairer and more democratic to have a choice who is the figurehead for our country
They are above the law too, which sucks !!
One thing in favour of some of the royals is they do a lot of work for charity which is nice !!
I will make a comprimise, let us stone Edward and his biffta and that ginga cow and I will be happy !!
I just think it would be fairer and more democratic to have a choice who is the figurehead for our country
They are above the law too, which sucks !!
One thing in favour of some of the royals is they do a lot of work for charity which is nice !!
I will make a comprimise, let us stone Edward and his biffta and that ginga cow and I will be happy !!
09 May 2002, 02:59 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote from a non-royal liking site !
'Yes, this jubilee year has proved most fruitful for us passionate haters of that anachronistic institution the monarchy. First it was that pompous **** Margaret that went and now at last, that wretched degenerate the queen mother has finally died. What an easter I have had! I have been singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" at the top of my lungs all weekend! Perhaps it's time for a street party?!'
this guy has issues !!
'Yes, this jubilee year has proved most fruitful for us passionate haters of that anachronistic institution the monarchy. First it was that pompous **** Margaret that went and now at last, that wretched degenerate the queen mother has finally died. What an easter I have had! I have been singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" at the top of my lungs all weekend! Perhaps it's time for a street party?!'
this guy has issues !!
09 May 2002, 04:20 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts