Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The parasitic cunt.
is alright by me
and Grieve announcing it on the day of his announcement for fresh Hillsborough inquiries.
but I really don't like it when an idiot thinks his views are valid because of whose minge he managed to find his way out of.
because of the minge he climbed out of!
to keep old people and stupid people happy as he's their mate.
it's the 21st century for fuck's sake
i can get on board with the idea of keeping the monarchy as a figurehead and a boon for tourism etc, happy to hear arguments that they pay their way, but the fucking idea that some arsehole thinks he can influence policy without scrutiny based purely on his parentage fucks me off a whole bunch
This is a thread about Prince Charles.
Thus It Has Capitals by JJR Twatface
When this government repeatedly ignore his requests and demands.
and the Information Tribunal, made up of judges and members appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It was the Upper Information Tribunal that ruled they should be disclosed. Just no point in a process at all.
If you aren’t happy with something going public, don’t write it. Whilst I broadly stay in favour of keeping the Monarchy, the fact that it could “damage his future kingship” is a poor reason not to publish them.
that what he has said in the letters is utter (probably self interested) pish.
The fact he's written these letters to government shows he's not politically neutral but a meddling, jumped up waste of money.
who isn't elected and therefore, as we are a democracy, he has no right to say shit.
Especially as we give him so much money to live in palaces and castles.
and I don't hate the EU.
I don't have to bow to the EU, physically and metaphorically. I don't pay millions for EU Presidents to get married. I do support their endeavours into animal abuse and killing. I do not pay for the upkeep of priceless gold carriages for EU officials to ride around in.
The EU may have a democratic deficit but it is fundamentally based on democratic principles, it does not exist on the basis of being appointed by God.
So completely different to the EU. As you well know.
You can completely ignore Charles if you like and he will have absolutely zero impact on your life. He can introduce no laws, he has no formal legislative amending procedures and so on.
Barosso on the other hand is the *only* person who can introduce legislation within the EU. And this is legislation that you *will* have to bow down to whether you like it or not. And you don't pay for his gold carriages, but you do pay for his million euro+ annual salary and pension package.
So no, he wasn't put there by God, but he is a lot more unaccountable and lot more dangerous than Charles. At least Charles can be ignored.
You can choose to ignore them, if you're happy to live the life of a troll.
Alanis Morissette explodes at irony levels.
doesn't actually constitute an argument or even address his point.
But well done for letting everyone know that you know something about something else.
If that's the concern, i'd say Charles is a very little fish in a very large pond who's not worthy of much ire.
Personally, I don't have have much of a problem with it, but if that's your concern, my point is that you should look elsewhere to bigger enemies of democracy with influence in the UK.
no-one should be in the slightest bit concerned about this?
By the same logic, is it stupid for people to be concerned about the homeless of this country because they should be worried about the greater quantity whose homes have been destroyed by a natural disaster elsewhere?
But the way Moker came into the thread swinging and swearing you would have thought someone had said something untoward about his mother.
to ensure Charles is reminded that he can't get away with it.
Fortunately it will get dealt with as there's enough republicans in the establishment.
Yes, I'm angry because I have to pay for a family of inbred, blood sport fools who live in palaces and ride around in transport that I pay for. Fair enough.
WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH
It's facts. Sorry if the argument is so old it's become cliche, but there you go.
Is egalitarianism cliché? Is universal human rights cliché? Sorry, we'll all try to do better.
It's all a bit this: http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~culttv/rikpic.jpg
Says that he should be above government and politics.
I think in that respect the present Queen has been an anomaly. Apart from disagreeing with the results of a lot of Thatcher's policies, she's been one of the few monarchs not to have tried to influence politics in this country.
But given his position, it should be publicly available.
should be fun.
Unlike most of them, he seems to have ethics, and he's got quite a dry sense of humour.
Gi' 'im da crown, man.
and thinks you're a scumbag
New article / rant about this in The Guardian
I see that mummy spanking your botty and making you spend 10 minutes on the naughty step has calmed you down.
according to a new Lonely Planet guide. Apparently it's like "sitting on a conveyor belt watching living history pass you by on both banks".
And I think that's largely thanks to the royal family. The *living* bit is quite important, and what seperates us from other countries whose monarchies are a relic from times very much gone by.
rather than the rent-free tenants?
It's the rent free tenenats who are the living history.
and that they are part of it. I'm neither republican nor royalist. I'm a 'if a democratic country wants a royal family then who am I to get in the way'. I just can't get worked up about it.
It's often argued on here that we would still get tourism from the royal family even if they ceased to exist - the palaxes and so on would still be there. And that's probably true, but the tourism, I think, would be much less.
It's the living on 'continuing' history of the roayl family that makes them so unique compared to royal families in other countries which no long exist. I'm thinking most obviously here of France - they still have royal palaces but their tourism from them is different (and less 'good', in my opinon) than out own. It's why, for example, Lonely Planet has marked out a row down the river Thames and not the Seine.
Our royal family seems to exist solely for tourists and old people. It's kinda quaint, although this does in a sense make it all the more important that people kick off when Charles starts trying to be more than a tourist magnet.
As for France, well I guess that's all subjective. They do seem to have a lot more castles and they're still the most popular tourist destination in the world. On balance I probably concede your point.
I hear you don't use many magic crystals, moon spells or water droplet therapy treatments for conditions such as cancer and AIDS. I think you should, so when I am on the throne, you shall.