Rioting students attack Royal car

[rory_20_uk]

Linky (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11969030). So far some shuffled feet and assurances of a review as to what happened.

What the outriders were doing letting the car going towards a large crowd that at the same time was trying to break into the treasury God only knows.

Leaving aside the dreadful initial job they did, they also seem to have done nothing as the car was attacked with paint and bricks. They appear to have taken it on faith that nothing untoward would happen to the Heir.

Personally, I think that individuals (and indeed, anyone nearby) under these conditions should be fired upon with live ammo and charges of Treason applied post mortem.

But then I am a Royalist...

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

charge

screw royals

[Brenus]

They still have their head. Then I am a Republican and French.

[InsaneApache]

You're a Royalist! Blimey.

The only thing going for having a royal family is that it stops the likes of president Blair, Brown or 'Call me Dave' Cameron. Which can only be a good thing.

Mind you, I'm old enough to remember stenguns in Knightsbridge.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwL10wYs-Aw

[Furunculus]

Personally, I think that individuals (and indeed, anyone nearby) under these conditions should be fired upon with live ammo and charges of Treason applied post mortem.

But then I am a Royalist...

~:smoking:
agreed, me too.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The whole thing with the student rioters is pathetic. Now some kid's mother was on the BBC complaining about how the police hurt his head... what do they expect when they attack them? They have a right to protest not riot like lunatics.

They do not even have a cause, they are middle-class gutmensch, they like to riot cause they think its fun. I do not understand why the left-leaning politicians even support them.

Live ammo is a bit extreme... I would use rubber bullets and tear gas/water cannons first. That would almost certainly make them back down, since they are not actually rioting over anything important.*

* in perspective that is, when you consider the conditions surrounding rioting in places like Haiti...

[HoreTore]

FLOG THE BUGGERS!!



I mean, they attacked that twit and failed to kill him? Whack 'em all for being utterly useless, I say! They had the chance and blew it, unacceptable!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Britain is going to have its own Tianamen Square... :uhoh:

Trust Labour and their communist cronies.

[gaelic cowboy]

Britain is going to have its own Tianamen Square... :uhoh:

Trust Labour and their communist cronies.

Not before time the english never rise up and try to smash the system :knight:

:book: :oops: Peasants Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt) Lollards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy) Chartism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism) right I'll stop googling now and get me coat.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What amateurs!

It is completely unacceptable that an angry mob could get this close to causing serious physical harm to royals, only for them to escape after all.

How could they have let them ran off with their heads still attached? How difficult can it be to apprehend fleeing royalty (http://www.webmatters.net/france/ww1_varennes_argonne.htm)? :smash:

[drone]

With wars and economic hardships, it's high time students cycled back around to 60's-70's style activism. I can only hope that we also get the music, but not the clothes and poor hygiene.


OT, what were the escorts thinking? :inquisitive:

[naut]

Oh no not Charlie! :rolleyes:

[Tellos Athenaios]

OT, what were the escorts thinking? :inquisitive:

Golden Opportunity? :idea2:

[InsaneApache]

I particularly liked that bastion of working class values Charlie Gilmore doing a Tarzan impression on the cenotaph. Poor guy, he's only a year two history student at Oxford but claims not to know what the cenotaph is. I wonder what they teach them these days?

And they wonder why people on the minimum wage don't want to subsidize these people. Perhaps instead of acting like a berk he should ask his dad for a couple of quid. Cretin.

[HoreTore]

OT, what were the escorts thinking? :inquisitive:

It's a bit out of order to be talking about Charles' call girls now, isn't it? I mean, his wife was right there....

[Furunculus]

How could they have let them ran off with their heads still attached? How difficult can it be to apprehend fleeing royalty (http://www.webmatters.net/france/ww1_varennes_argonne.htm)? :smash:

our royal family is not known for fleeing:

http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/bronnenbank.asp?aid=35657
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/war/royalfamily.htm

[HoreTore]

our royal family is not known for fleeing

I disagree, Diana is certainly well known for that time she was fleeing........

[Furunculus]

I disagree, Diana is certainly well known for that time she was fleeing........

diana was never fit to join the royal family, that has always been clear.

[naut]

diana was never fit to join the royal family, that has always been clear.
Yep. She's not a close relative.

[Beskar]

We should have a republic anyway, and stop living in the past.

Also, the vast majority of students are not rioting, but peacefully protesting. So the police beating some one over the head tot he degree of them requiring brain surgery when they were not one of the rioters is a cause for concern.

[HoreTore]

Yep. She's not a close relative.

:laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

And they wonder why people on the minimum wage don't want to subsidize these people. Perhaps instead of acting like a berk he should ask his dad for a couple of quid. Cretin.

Yeah... I always thought it strange that the left supports these students, who want more money that they don't need at the expense of people that are actually poor. I believe some Labour backbenchers have pointed this out, although they can't stop the tide of stupidity.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I particularly liked that bastion of working class values Charlie Gilmore doing a Tarzan impression on the cenotaph. Poor guy, he's only a year two history student at Oxford but claims not to know what the cenotaph is. I wonder what they teach them these days?

My dear fellow. The laddie is an undergraduate at Girton College, Cambridge. That bunch of johnny-come-latelies won't even rusticate the dismal chap. It is no surprise to me that the education there is negligent. Practically a polytechnic, don't you know.

[Furunculus]

We should have a republic anyway, and stop living in the past.

Also, the vast majority of students are not rioting, but peacefully protesting. So the police beating some one over the head tot he degree of them requiring brain surgery when they were not one of the rioters is a cause for concern.

you night think so, but i'm not looking forward to the alternative which is a much more expensive president blair. yes, yes, i know in your perfect world the president would cost 50p/year and be the embodiment of a saint and as wise as solomen, i'm not convinced however.

wot IA said, they're are supposed to have brains so why aren't they using them, the anarchists are a PR disaster for their cause. how sympathetic are the working minimum wage supposed to feel when they watch prize twits tarzan around the cenotaph and set fire to things.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My dear fellow. The laddie is an undergraduate at Girton College, Cambridge. That bunch of johnny-come-latelies won't even rusticate the dismal chap. It is no surprise to me that the education there is negligent. Practically a polytechnic, don't you know.Ah, yes, Oxford. A fine modern institution of higher education. Located conveniently close to where many French gentlemen found a living in this period, it allowed for the less talented sons to receive a nominal education close to home, without the hassle of having to travel to Paris.

[Husar]

they're are supposed to have brains

This topic really gets to you, doesn't it? ~;)

Of course you can make the students pay more, that usually leads to less students, more unemployed people because jobs other than those that require studies are already satisfied with workers and sooner or later your industry will whine that there are not enough people to fill out all the high profile jobs and hire people from abroad like India or China while you wonder how that can be with so many unemployed people and why the government doesn't do anything to get local people into these jobs.
I think finishing university with a loan isn't all that bad if you actually get a job that pays, of course if you don't, then everyone loses (the next big crisis after the education bubble burst? ~D ).

[Fragony]

our royal family is not known for fleeing:

http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/bronnenbank.asp?aid=35657
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/war/royalfamily.htm

Ours is very good at fleeing, in London the second the Netherlands was invaded, also good at flying, Bernard Lippe personally flew half of nazi germany to Argentia after all, tipping the Germans of about market garden was loyal enough anyhow, busy guy

[Beskar]

you night think so, but i'm not looking forward to the alternative which is a much more expensive president blair. yes, yes, i know in your perfect world the president would cost 50p/year and be the embodiment of a saint and as wise as solomen, i'm not convinced however.

The President doesn't need a wage higher than the Prime Minister or a higher consumption of resources. Why would he need one?

I never understood the argument that it would be somehow vastly more expensive. Please explain that to me.

[InsaneApache]

My dear fellow. The laddie is an undergraduate at Girton College, Cambridge. That bunch of johnny-come-latelies won't even rusticate the dismal chap. It is no surprise to me that the education there is negligent. Practically a polytechnic, don't you know.

It seems he dropped a microdot or a blotter (very apt, given who his step-dad is) and was flying with the gods. Ala Robert Wyatt.

I, on the other hand, have no excuse for my iggorince. :embarassed:

[rory_20_uk]

The President doesn't need a wage higher than the Prime Minister or a higher consumption of resources. Why would he need one?

I never understood the argument that it would be somehow vastly more expensive. Please explain that to me.

I would start by using the example of every President in existence on the planet.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

The President doesn't need a wage higher than the Prime Minister or a higher consumption of resources. Why would he need one?

I never understood the argument that it would be somehow vastly more expensive. Please explain that to me.

i believe rory has beaten me to it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would start by using the example of every President in existence on the planet.

~:smoking:The president of Germany? Of Austria? Of Ireland? Of Switzerland?

The alternative for a hereditary monarchy for the UK is not a US / French style presidency. The more fitting solution is to remain a parliamentary democracy, with a ceremonial presidency. President David Attenborough is more likely than a president Blair, which is much more at odds with British political traditions.

In Switzerland they don't even know who their president is. Maybe that woman who claims she is, maybe one out of a rotating council of seven, maybe all of them simultaneously. The total costs are about 12,35 swiss Franks a year, for changing the name on the official national seal every year.

[lars573]

The president of Germany? Of Austria? Of Ireland? Of Switzerland?

The alternative for a hereditary monarchy for the UK is not a US / French style presidency. The more fitting solution is to remain a parliamentary democracy, with a ceremonial presidency. President David Attenborough is more likely than a president Blair, which is much more at odds with British political traditions.

In Switzerland they don't even know who their president is. Maybe that woman who claims she is, maybe one out of a rotating council of seven, maybe all of them simultaneously. The total costs are about 12,35 swiss Franks a year, for changing the name on the official national seal every year.
I think, Monsieur, their fear is that any president of Great Britain wouldn't remain in the German/Irish/Austrian mold for long. That some power hungry, smooth talking, Cromwell wannabe C-U-Next-Tuesday will come along and promulgate and act similar to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_South_Africa_Constitution_Act,_1983). Where the powers of the offices of President and Prime Minister are combined into 1 office (for our purpose Lord Protector of the Commonwealth). And this new Lord Protector will be chosen in the same fashion as a Prime Minister, also weakening parliamentary authority over the government's actions.

[Furunculus]

The president of Germany? Of Austria? Of Ireland? Of Switzerland?

The alternative for a hereditary monarchy for the UK is not a US / French style presidency. The more fitting solution is to remain a parliamentary democracy, with a ceremonial presidency. President David Attenborough is more likely than a president Blair, which is much more at odds with British political traditions.

In Switzerland they don't even know who their president is. Maybe that woman who claims she is, maybe one out of a rotating council of seven, maybe all of them simultaneously. The total costs are about 12,35 swiss Franks a year, for changing the name on the official national seal every year.
not that i am disagreeing with the possibility, but were this to be the case how we would argue that the result was an improvement over that which we already have?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All-in-all, I am beginning to suspect that Charles is not an auspicious name for British monarchs.

[Beskar]

not that i am disagreeing with the possibility, but were this to be the case how we would argue that the result was an improvement over that which we already have?

Abolish hereditary succession.

[Beskar]

All-in-all, I am beginning to suspect that Charles is not an auspicious name for British monarchs.

He will be King George (the VII) when crowned.

[Strike For The South]

He will be King George when crowned.

:O
.

[HoreTore]

not that i am disagreeing with the possibility, but were this to be the case how we would argue that the result was an improvement over that which we already have?

Because:

1. You would save a ton of money.
2. You would no longer have inbred hereditary dictators to represent you or interfere with your politics.

[Devastatin Dave]

Leaches tend to get very aggressive when the host starts to run out of blood...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Leaches tend to get very aggressive when the host starts to run out of blood...Nah, they both looked too stunned and scared for that.

[Devastatin Dave]

Nah, they both looked too stunned and scared for that.

I'm sure Charles had a complete melt down when he went back to the palace. Whether its the Royal leaches or the "student" leaches, Britain is in big trouble and I hope all my American friends are taking note because its going to happen here soon enough. Getting your society addicted to entitlements sets a very dangerous condition whether it be from the citizens or the elites....

[rory_20_uk]

Your "Royals" have powers that those in the UK can only dream of.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Abolish hereditary succession.

what to replace them with a pointless German style figurehead........................?

show me how it will be a definitive improvement if you wish to persuade me to replace a system that works VERY well already.

having faith that; change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

[Furunculus]

Because:

1. You would save a ton of money.
2. You would no longer have inbred hereditary dictators to represent you or interfere with your politics.

1. rubbish. the royal family costs peanuts.
2. the system works VERY well, convince me that an alternative will prove to be a superior system.............?

[gaelic cowboy]

1. rubbish. the royal family costs peanuts.

Rubbish there getting millions of pounds when they have thousands and thousands of acres of land and properties they could use to make there own money.

figures in millions 2010 2009
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2009 and 2008) 14.2 13.9
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 19.7 22.6
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 3.9 4.6

looks to me like there getting pots of cash for not a lot if you ask me apparently 38.2 million

official figures from the Monarchy website (http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/HeadofStateexpenditure.aspx)

[HoreTore]

Rubbish there getting millions of pounds when they have thousands and thousands of acres of land and properties they could use to make there own money.

figures in millions
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2009 and 2008) 14.2 13.9
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 19.7 22.6
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 3.9 4.6

looks to me like there getting pots of cash for not a lot if you ask me.

Furunculus talks about how "low income people" are unable to understand the lives of "spoiled students", yet he refers to the luxury the royal family lives in as "peanuts".... :dizzy2:

[Beskar]

show me how it will be a definitive improvement if you wish to persuade me to replace a system that works VERY well already.

having faith that; change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

There is an argument for paying the Monarch big big money but why do the rest of them get anything????

[HoreTore]

Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

Indeed.

If it is as the monarchists say, that the current regent is in fact the best qualified, then things will remain the same, as they'd win the election. The only way Elizabeth(or Victoria or whatever you call your queen these days) would be booted as head of state should there be an election, is if the public finds another candidate better suited to the job.

This way you can have your cake and eat it too: you'll both get your Queen as head of state and it will be because the public deems her the best qualified person for the job!

But as most monarchists reject this notion, it must be because they know that the current inbreds in power are rubbish.


There is an argument for paying the Monarch big big money but why do the rest of them get anything????

Because they are welfare leeches too lazy to get a job, thus relying on other peoples labour to feed them.

[Beskar]

There is an argument for paying the Monarch big big money but why do the rest of them get anything????

That is another point as well, on-top.


If it is as the monarchists say, that the current regent is in fact the best qualified, then things will remain the same, as they'd win the election. The only way Elizabeth(or Victoria or whatever you call your queen these days) would be booted as head of state should there be an election, is if the public finds another candidate better suited to the job..

Exactly, the current monarch isn't that bad. This is why I advocate reforming the system so when she dies naturally or retires, the new system then comes into effect. No point having a whole upheaval, as there is no pressing concerns to bring it in ASAP.

If Charles is really the best, he could run for the position as the first President of Great Britain. I have no issues with them lifting the ban on royals running for government (since they would no longer be royals).

[Furunculus]

Rubbish there getting millions of pounds when they have thousands and thousands of acres of land and properties they could use to make there own money.

figures in millions 2010 2009
The Queen's Civil List (figures are for calendar years 2009 and 2008) 14.2 13.9
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 0.4
Grants-in-aid 19.7 22.6
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate 3.9 4.6

looks to me like there getting pots of cash for not a lot if you ask me apparently 38.2 million

official figures from the Monarchy website (http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/HeadofStateexpenditure.aspx)


that is peanuts, comparatively, so i am lead to believe.

then of course their is the disputed argument over the crown estates, and the £210m in revenue it brought in for the exchequer, which if you believe republic.org is really nothing more than the states money anyway, but others take the view that the revenue from the crown estates was surrendered to in return for the civil list.

http://www.moneyobserver.com/issue/features/crown-estate-unveiled
http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=221
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

frankly, i don't have a problem with it.

[HoreTore]

Exactly, the current monarch isn't that bad. This is why I advocate reforming the system so when she dies naturally or retires, the new system then comes into effect. No point having a whole upheaval, as there is no pressing concerns to bring it in ASAP.

If Charles is really the best, he could run for the position as the first President of Great Britain. I have no issues with them lifting the ban on royals running for government (since they would no longer be royals).

Another point is of course that you don't really need a president at all.

Appointing governments and such is a job your highest court of law is perfectly capable of performing.

[Beskar]

Another point is of course that you don't really need a president at all.

Appointing governments and such is a job your highest court of law is perfectly capable of performing.

Exactly, I have advocated previously just total removal. All you need to do is draw up a new constitution and have the High Court act like a Supreme Court (which it basically is) to rule on constitutional matters.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus talks about how "low income people" are unable to understand the lives of "spoiled students", yet he refers to the luxury the royal family lives in as "peanuts".... :dizzy2:

compared to the cost of other heads of state?


Because others can do a better job. It should be the best person for the job, not because of who your parents are. I rather have some one who is good at the job than some one who only got it because their mother is the Queen.

define how, and provide a methodology that demonstrates how nations with presidents get better value for money and/or greater effect than britain's constitutional monarchy.............


Indeed.

If it is as the monarchists say, that the current regent is in fact the best qualified, then things will remain the same, as they'd win the election. The only way Elizabeth(or Victoria or whatever you call your queen these days) would be booted as head of state should there be an election, is if the public finds another candidate better suited to the job.

This way you can have your cake and eat it too: you'll both get your Queen as head of state and it will be because the public deems her the best qualified person for the job!

But as most monarchists reject this notion, it must be because they know that the current inbreds in power are rubbish.

as said earlier; having faith that change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

demonstrate unambiguously that the alternative would be better.



Exactly, the current monarch isn't that bad. This is why I advocate reforming the system so when she dies naturally or retires, the new system then comes into effect. No point having a whole upheaval, as there is no pressing concerns to bring it in ASAP.

If Charles is really the best, he could run for the position as the first President of Great Britain. I have no issues with them lifting the ban on royals running for government (since they would no longer be royals).

you advocate that, fair enough, show me a referendum where the majority vote in favour of the change and i will happily consent............


Exactly, I have advocated previously just total removal. All you need to do is draw up a new constitution and have the High Court act like a Supreme Court (which it basically is) to rule on constitutional matters.

fine, if that's how we want to run things....................... *waits patiently to the sound of chirping crickets*

[gaelic cowboy]

define how, and provide a methodology that demonstrates how nations with presidents get better value for money and/or greater effect than britain's constitutional monarchy.............

The Head of State can be removed if they were involved in a scandal but you cant remove a royal with out causing a constitutional crisis.
There you go that has to be better in this day and age.

[Furunculus]

The Head of State can be removed if they were involved in a scandal but you cant remove a royal with out causing a constitutional crisis.
There you go that has to be better in this day and age.

that would be fine provided the royal family held more than a ceremonial and diplomatic role.

what we have works VERY well, i see no need to change it.

[HoreTore]

compared to the cost of other heads of state?

Yes, compare it to the head of state of Germany, for example.


as said earlier; having faith that change for the purpose of being 'progressive' is by definition a good thing, is not a belief system that i adhere to.

If what you say is true, there would be no change at all with a democratic election.

But you want to retain your dictator because you know they're unqualified.

[Furunculus]

Yes, compare it to the head of state of Germany, for example.

If what you say is true, there would be no change at all with a democratic election.

But you want to retain your dictator because you know they're unqualified.

please do; provide a cost benefit analysis between the costs and revenues of the two systems.......?

not true at all, i am quite happy for change to happen if its demonstrated that it will be a better system..........?

again, not true, the queen is fantastically qualified to be a head of state.

[HoreTore]

again, not true, the queen is fantastically qualified to be a head of state.

Then she will win the election and you should want that, as it will be irrefutable proof that she is deemed qualified.

[Furunculus]

Then she will win the election and you should want that, as it will be irrefutable proof that she is deemed qualified.

urhg, i don't want or need elections, i am perfectly content with the system as it is, until someone demonstrates that a republic would be a significantly and unambiguously a better outcome.

p.s. where is your cost benefit analysis...............?

[HoreTore]

urhg, i don't want or need elections

You have lots in common with some of your more radical new countrymen then.

EDIT: oh, and the cost-benefit:

Wages and costs for the supreme court: none, as they are already paid. Thus, everything spent on the royals is counted as a saving.

No longer being represented by inbreds: priceless.

[Tsavong]

Then she will win the election and you should want that, as it will be irrefutable proof that she is deemed qualified.

No the person with he best spin doctor would win.

Anyway I quite like the prime minister having to go to the Queen (or King) to form a government it should put them in there place so to speak.

[Furunculus]

You have lots in common with some of your more radical new countrymen then.

EDIT: oh, and the cost-benefit: Wages and costs for the supreme court: none, as they are already paid. Thus, everything spent on the royals is counted as a saving.


how so, being conservative is an old and honourable tradition in Britain?

oh, there i was thinking you were going to come up with figures that demonstrate that the german presidency cost no more than a round of weissbeers for the boys and a hearty meal of snitzells................ i'm disappointed. :(

[Slyspy]

I've always been of the opinion that at a protest turned violent there are two sides up for a fight. One has weapons, tactics and the law on their side. The other has sticks and bottles. I know which one I'm most concerned about.

[Brenus]

The Cossacks.
They had weapons, tactics and law on theirs side.

[HoreTore]

how so, being conservative is an old and honourable tradition in Britain?

oh, there i was thinking you were going to come up with figures that demonstrate that the german presidency cost no more than a round of weissbeers for the boys and a hearty meal of snitzells................ i'm disappointed. :(

No need for that when the high court is completely free.

I see you've stopped arguing back though.

[Fragony]

I've always been of the opinion that at a protest turned violent there are two sides up for a fight. One has weapons, tactics and the law on their side. The other has sticks and bottles. I know which one I'm most concerned about.

The ones with the weapons they aren't allowed to use, bottle ad head hurts

[Furunculus]

No need for that when the high court is completely free.

I see you've stopped arguing back though.

i have never considered the supreme court to be a valid alternative.

but just to be sure; you are framing this argument in economic terms, right?

[InsaneApache]

Here's summat for the royalists.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz8rHeJ3FAk&feature=player_embedded#!

Does bring a lump to the throat though.

[HoreTore]

i have never considered the supreme court to be a valid alternative.

but just to be sure; you are framing this argument in economic terms, right?

Economic terms, democratic teerms, principal terms, human rights terms, fairness terms, social justice terms and probably a few terms I've forgotten.

[Beskar]

Economic terms, democratic teerms, principal terms, human rights terms, fairness terms, social justice terms and probably a few terms I've forgotten.

But you know what all those things lack? Good ol' British tradition. Rule Britannia.

[Fragony]

i have never considered the supreme court to be a valid alternative.

but just to be sure; you are framing this argument in economic terms, right?

Being born isn't that difficult, hardly remember any of it but I did it. Some are really good at it and win all sorts of awards, yeah I support them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

[Beskar]

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

But since the last few posts HoreTore has been arguing for outright abolishing them and not replacing them with anything, since the High court already rules as a Supreme Court as such. So in other-words, there is still a parliamentary democracy, just no Queen/King and there is no president. Since afterall, the Monarchy are a relic of the past and nothing more than a figurehead, we could simply replace them with a statue of Britannia.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

In other words, you lot believe in a hereditary dictatorship?

Besides, how would a Supreme Court assuming the role of monarch change that? And why does your president have to be political?

[Furunculus]

Economic terms, democratic teerms, principal terms, human rights terms, fairness terms, social justice terms and probably a few terms I've forgotten.

yes, nice laundry list, but put figures against them, demonstrate a REAL case for change.

and please don't forget that most important of characteristics; effectiveness, the Royal Family have been an excellent head-of-state, demonstrate that the alternative would be unambiguously and substantially an improvement...........


But you know what all those things lack? Good ol' British tradition. Rule Britannia.

sure, we have a system that works VERY well, and no-one has demonstrated that any alternative would be substantially and unambiguously an improvement.

[Furunculus]

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

quite, it is a very efficient and effective system.


But since the last few posts HoreTore has been arguing for outright abolishing them and not replacing them with anything, since the High court already rules as a Supreme Court as such. So in other-words, there is still a parliamentary democracy, just no Queen/King and there is no president. Since afterall, the Monarchy are a relic of the past and nothing more than a figurehead, we could simply replace them with a statue of Britannia.

he did that just after he challenged me to compare the cost of the monarchy to the german presidency:



Yes, compare it to the head of state of Germany, for example.


please do; provide a cost benefit analysis between the costs and revenues of the two systems.......?

since which point we have been treated to blessed silence.

once again emotion and moralising, not to mention a little posturing, trumps cold hard demonstrable facts...................!

[Rhyfelwyr]

But since the last few posts HoreTore has been arguing for outright abolishing them and not replacing them with anything, since the High court already rules as a Supreme Court as such. So in other-words, there is still a parliamentary democracy, just no Queen/King and there is no president. Since afterall, the Monarchy are a relic of the past and nothing more than a figurehead, we could simply replace them with a statue of Britannia.

But as I said we should not abolish the monarchy, we need it as a safeguard. The Lords is already weak enough, do you really want the Commons to have free reign?


In other words, you lot believe in a hereditary dictatorship?

Besides, how would a Supreme Court assuming the role of monarch change that? And why does your president have to be political?

I believe that one particular political office is best kept hereditary, yes. Why on earth you presume that must mean it is despotic I have no idea.

In any case, I am open to alternatives for fulfilling the same role as the monarchy in safeguarding against overbearing politicians. I like the current solution with monarchy, since it is a) unelected b) hereditary. If this presidential alternative was elected, that removes his whole purpose in protecting against populist tyranny. If his position is not hereditary, that leads to all the power politics and other such nonsense and potential for abuse (like with what Putin did swapping positions in Russia and leaving his little puppet Medvedev, if one position was hereditary he coudln't have done that).

[HoreTore]

yes, nice laundry list, but put figures against them, demonstrate a REAL case for change.

and please don't forget that most important of characteristics; effectiveness, the Royal Family have been an excellent head-of-state, demonstrate that the alternative would be unambiguously and substantially an improvement...........

I've already done so.

High Court is already paid, therefore completely free. Everything currently spent on inbreds is now a savings. You could use it to pay off some of that massive debt you have.


I believe that one particular political office is best kept hereditary, yes. Why on earth you presume that must mean it is despotic I have no idea.

In any case, I am open to alternatives for fulfilling the same role as the monarchy in safeguarding against overbearing politicians. I like the current solution with monarchy, since it is a) unelected b) hereditary. If this presidential alternative was elected, that removes his whole purpose in protecting against populist tyranny. If his position is not hereditary, that leads to all the power politics and other such nonsense and potential for abuse (like with what Putin did swapping positions in Russia and leaving his little puppet Medvedev, if one position was hereditary he coudln't have done that).

Yes, the world has never seen a corrupt Monarch.



Oh wait, it was the other way around! The has never seen a Monarch that isn't corrupt, that was it yes....

[Furunculus]

In other words, you lot believe in a hereditary dictatorship?

Besides, how would a Supreme Court assuming the role of monarch change that? And why does your president have to be political?

you really struggle with basic concepts don't you:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/constitutional+monarchy

constitutional monarchy
n.
A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation.

what i don't get is why you are so keen to change my life, i for one have zero interest in asking you to reform your political institutions.

is it insecurity?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, the world has never seen a corrupt Monarch.

Oh wait, it was the other way around! The has never seen a Monarch that isn't corrupt, that was it yes....

That is because power corrupts. Monarchs were historically powerful, so they were corrupt. Democratic leaders are not immune from this. Just look at the political culture in the USA, it makes Britain look like a bastion of progressiveness and transparency.

I am by no means a stauch royalist, you may have noticed one of my favourite historical personalities is Oliver Cromwell. I am just aware that tyranny comes in many forms, and monarchs can be ideal safeguards against tyrants who may rise through the democratic system.

[HoreTore]

That is because power corrupts. Monarchs were historically powerful, so they were corrupt. Democratic leaders are not immune from this. Just look at the political culture in the USA, it makes Britain look like a bastion of progressiveness and transparency.

I am by no means a stauch royalist, you may have noticed one of my favourite historical personalities is Oliver Cromwell. I am just aware that tyranny comes in many forms, and monarchs can be ideal safeguards against tyrants who may rise through the democratic system.

What tyrant coming through the democratic system has a monarchy stopped, if I may ask?

Can't think of any, but I can certainly remember plenty of brutal dictators with royal backing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What tyrant coming through the democratic system has a monarchy stopped, if I may ask?

Can't think of any, but I can certainly remember plenty of brutal dictators with royal backing.

We'll never know, since the balance in the system is what prevents such problems from ever arising. Certainly, Britain has enjoyed political stability that most other countries can only dream of, and notably, this was achieved around the same time we became a constitutional monarchy.

As for the royals that backed dictators, in almost every example I can think of these dicatotors were actually initially opposed, and were only later backed as the lesser of two evils (fascism over communism).

[HoreTore]

We'll never know, since the balance in the system is what prevents such problems from ever arising. Certainly, Britain has enjoyed political stability that most other countries can only dream of, and notably, this was achieved around the same time we became a constitutional monarchy.

As for the royals that backed dictators, in almost every example I can think of these dicatotors were actually initially opposed, and were only later backed as the lesser of two evils (fascism over communism).

The UK has had more political stability than the US? Nonsense. No need to go that far though, you only need to look to the island to your west to find a republic with the same level of political stability. Or the island to your north. Or, if you want to look at a constitutional monarchy in political chaos, turn the clock back 150 years and look south. On the other hand, the "wonderously stable" Thailand(you know, the place with a yearly rebellion), whose corrupt PM bought :daisy: with his stolen money, is a constitutional monarchy.

Oh, and please: Spain's dictator, for example, was appointed by their monarch.

EDIT: Also, there's no stability bonus for a constitutional monarchy, you get a 2% prestige bonus. Bureaucratic despotism gives a stability bonus.

[gaelic cowboy]

EDIT: Also, there's no stability bonus for a constitutional monarchy, you get a 2% prestige bonus. Bureaucratic despotism gives a stability bonus.

Yeah and you get a high amount of unrest in your aristocrats if you allow even a small amount of suffrage.

[Beskar]

I've already done so.

High Court is already paid, therefore completely free. Everything currently spent on inbreds is now a savings. You could use it to pay off some of that massive debt you have.

Plus, the High Court requires vast amounts of legal experience and you have to have a background cleaner than clean. So you would have some one with great legal experience on these matters overseeing the decision making process, opposed to a puppet-Queen/King who just rubber-stamps. This alongside a Constitution would prevent any tyranny, other than out-right Revolution.

[HoreTore]

Plus, the High Court requires vast amounts of legal experience and you have to have a background cleaner than clean. So you would have some one with great legal experience on these matters overseeing the decision making process, opposed to a puppet-Queen/King.

Indeed.

The High Court actually has the legitimacy, insight and knowledge to interfere with politics gone wrong, something a muppet inbred will never have. Our courts are well known to lay down the law when our politicians tries something "smart", haven't seen many monarchs do that.

[InsaneApache]

What tyrant coming through the democratic system has a monarchy stopped, if I may ask?

Can't think of any, but I can certainly remember plenty of brutal dictators with royal backing.

The Lord Protector.

When it came down to it, he was worse than the King he killed. We learned our lesson there and then. No more republics for Great Britain.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Lord Protector.

When it came down to it, he was worse than the King he killed. We learned our lesson there and then. No more republics for Great Britain.

no the lesson was no more religious government.

[Rhyfelwyr]

no the lesson was no more religious government.

Actually, that is precisely what Cromwell was against. Him and his "sectarians" in the New Model Army were fiercely opposed to any sort of established church. The more politically moderate Puritans that supported the Restoration wanted Charles II to impose a Presbyterian church and remove religious toleration for Quakers, Baptists, Congregationalists etc.

Cromwell is seen as a dictator because he rose to power through the army but ultimately he fought for individual liberty. Yes he opposed the democratic Parliament, but only because they wanted to impose their own views on everybody because 'most people wanted to do it'.

Again, its a classic example of how we conflate liberalism with democracy because of our modern prejudices, when in fact the two are far from synonymous.

[gaelic cowboy]

Dont you think going round forcing people to close shops on certain days or not too eat mince pies using some kind of religion police force was fundamentalism.

[HoreTore]

The Lord Protector.

When it came down to it, he was worse than the King he killed. We learned our lesson there and then. No more republics for Great Britain.

.....And he came through a democratic system, but was stopped from gaining power by the monarch excercising the powers he had...?

[Furunculus]

Indeed.

The High Court actually has the legitimacy, insight and knowledge to interfere with politics gone wrong, something a muppet inbred will never have. Our courts are well known to lay down the law when our politicians tries something "smart", haven't seen many monarchs do that.

the monarchy has every shred of legitimacy it will ever need as long as the people it represents believe, as a simple majority, that it is indeed legitimate.

if this country doesn't want a monarchy, we ought to ask them, and in the absence of that we could at least look at opinion polls..................

[HoreTore]

the monarchy has every shred of legitimacy it will ever need as long as the people it represents believe, as a simple majority, that it is indeed legitimate.

if this country doesn't want a monarchy, we ought to ask them, and in the absence of that we could at least look at opinion polls..................

So have an election already!

[Furunculus]

we've been through this already, i am perfectly happy with the present arrangement, it works VERY well, and no-one has demonstrated that a republic would be unambiguously and substantially a better system of government.

look i get it, you don't like monarchies and would rather not have one yourself, but why not dedicate this prodigious proselyting energy you have to convincing your fellow countrymen that they would be better served by a republic..................

no wait, i remember now, you are an internationalist/transnational-progressive so you feel it your prerogative to insert yourself ad-infinitum into other peoples business, for their own 'good'.

have you ever heard of the Jehovahs' witnesses? i've recently begun to feel that they are lacking in commitment these days, and perhaps they might benefit from a motivational lecture from your good self, think about it.

[HoreTore]

*snip*

Edit: on second thought, responding to such obvious flamebaiting simply isn't worth it. Go play in your sandbox now.

EDIT: No wait, I'll leave you with this:

When people no longer find it possible to debate principles on an abstract level, they resort to drawing the discussion towards their own person. You have proven this, Furunculus. I have no interest in discussing your personal habits.

[Beskar]

Furunculus, no point trying to shut HoreTore up with that and ignoring my posts... so you tell some one their opinion doesn't count because they are in a different country, but ignore your own countrymen? :tongue:

I think the case against having a republic is overwhelmingly convincing (by me and HoreTore) opposed to outdated rubberstamp waste of space and monetary expense we currently have.

[HoreTore]

I think the case against having a republic is overwhelmingly convincing (by me and HoreTore) opposed to outdated rubberstamp waste of space and monetary expense we currently have.

Apparently, when that point is lost, one resorts to screaming "shut up shut up shut up, I don't want to hear your opinion lalalalalala".

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, no point trying to shut HoreTore up with that and ignoring my posts... so you tell some one their opinion doesn't count because they are in a different country, but ignore your own countrymen? :tongue:

I think the case against having a republic is overwhelmingly convincing (by me and HoreTore) opposed to outdated rubberstamp waste of space and monetary expense we currently have.

already covered this; have a referendum.

if its comes back with a yes vote i'll try not to complain too much.

the last post you addressed to me was on page two, the last one from you that referred to me was this:


But you know what all those things lack? Good ol' British tradition. Rule Britannia.

which i responded too.........

[Idaho]

our royal family is not known for fleeing:

http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/bronnenbank.asp?aid=35657
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/war/royalfamily.htm

James II?

Edward VIII?

Your knowledge of history lets you down again.



I think it's always good to scare the crap out of the elites every now and again.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Dont you think going round forcing people to close shops on certain days or not too eat mince pies using some kind of religion police force was fundamentalism.

That was seen as nothing more than an issue of public decency in those times, kinds of like how you can't walk around naked nowadays. Ultimately Cromwell supported freedom of religion in a way most people of the time did not.


I think the case against having a republic is overwhelmingly convincing (by me and HoreTore) opposed to outdated rubberstamp waste of space and monetary expense we currently have.

If you have presented a case then its been a mish mash of points dotted around the thread, and I haven't seen a convincing point made yet. If you want change, then its your job to say why your way of doing this is better.

[InsaneApache]

I was going to reply to this thread but I can't be bothered. :book:

[Furunculus]

James II?

Edward VIII?

Your knowledge of history lets you down again.


when was the first time champ?


Members of the royal family belong to, either by birth or marriage, the House of Windsor, since 1917, when George V changed the name of the royal house from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

you've found a single family member who wasn't up to scratch, and you write off the whole lot! for shame, where is your progressive left compassion?

[tibilicus]

For what it's worth, I think it's rich that Labour voted unanimously against tuition fees. Which party introduced them again, that's right, Labour. Not that the NUS made a song and dance about it back then..

[Beskar]

If you have presented a case then its been a mish mash of points dotted around the thread, and I haven't seen a convincing point made yet. If you want change, then its your job to say why your way of doing this is better.

I got an idea, if everyone here is up for it, the better.

Those who are pro-keeping the system and those proposing an alternative, all makes points and arguments for their view. After 24 hours, I will collate all this views and points in one post, which we can all view at a glance a whole summary. Then from that point on, we discuss from the ideas which sounds the best, based on the value of the points (explanation too, to go with it). This way, we all get the best from our arguments, we accurately see any pro's and con's, and don't end up in any silly arguments.

This way, the 'Pro-Monarchy' has their viewpoints listed, and the Alternatives have theirs listed.

I will be writing mine tomorrow afternoon.

[ If you feel any of my collating is unfair (I will write it neutral as possible, referencing posts representing views). Feel free to ask any moderator for their independent opinion whether I fairly represented it or not, and if they feel I abused the position, they can blackmark me / infraction points. ]

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Careful now. Remember our little forums rules for deportment and decorum.

[Furunculus]

Another genius moment for Charlie Gilmore taken from his facebook page:

"I did not actually damage the cenotaph. it is the warped priorities of the right wing media that has caused most damage right now."

So, swinging off the Cenotaph, setting a fire in front of the Supreme Court, and seen carrying a boot from the vandalised Top-Shop store.............. a paragon of peaceful British protest!

[Slyspy]

I'm happy to see that people are stil capable of violent protest.

[InsaneApache]

I'm happy to see that people are stil capable of violent protest.

It's counter productive though, isn't it? The students lost a lot of support in the general population with, what, three riots in a row? This coupled with the fact that everyone in the country is going to be affected by the cuts, they have just made themselves look like stupid, selfish brats. When it's estimated that 35000 pensioners might freeze to death this winter because they have to choose between eating and heating, the rioting students look more like complete bastards.

On top of that, a more inarticulate, thick and selfish bunch of onanists I have yet to come across. I don't know about university, some of these clowns need to learn how to speak English. Pillocks.

[Slyspy]

It's counter productive though, isn't it? The students lost a lot of support in the general population with, what, three riots in a row? This coupled with the fact that everyone in the country is going to be affected by the cuts, they have just made themselves look like stupid, selfish brats. When it's estimated that 35000 pensioners might freeze to death this winter because they have to choose between eating and heating, the rioting students look more like complete bastards.

On top of that, a more inarticulate, thick and selfish bunch of onanists I have yet to come across. I don't know about university, some of these clowns need to learn how to speak English. Pillocks.

While the rest of us roll over and get shafted by the cuts you criticise the ones who go out and make their voice heard over broken promises? Sure the violence may have lost them some public support, but lets face it that public support wouldn't have helped their cause either since the public as a whole is cowed and apathetic, with no real political voice. If you have a cause that you think is worth a damn then better to be out there shouting about it than at home tut-tutting IMO.

I fail to see how the possiblity of pensioners suffering due to the cuts makes the students look like "stupid, selfish brats". The two are not connected, you make it sound like as case of cause and effect, or of one or the other. In fact, as it turns out, we have neither. However, at least the students fought their corner as best they could, whilst nobody fought for the pensioners.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh yeah - don't make a fuss during the policies causing the problem, wait until those try and fix it and then smash things up as that'll help. We had an election. Most didn't want free money for students to be extended except for Lib Dems, who failed to get a majority. So loose, the vote, then behave like petulant children?

Pensioners live for over a decade longer than predicted and cost vastly more than predicted. And to "help", it'd be best if people smashed more stuff to show who exactly? The government will release all the magic money that is only released during times of violence???!?

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meh. Britain's already got the lowest social mobility in Europe. As it is, it is mostly rich kids who can go to university anyway, so why not stop the pretense and just raise the tuition fees.

The gates are closed, the drawbridges are up. Britain is now where it was 150 years ago. With a class divide that is as sharp as it is final, nearly impregnable. What were these spoiled brats thinking anyways, protesting that their less fortunate countrymen should be able to go to university and better themselves. Just where do they think they are - the 21st century!?

[rory_20_uk]

oh where to start...

Firstly, it reduced the money required to go to uni as money is paid back as a percentage of salary after graduation.
Secondly, it increased the threshold when one had to pay the money back - up from 15k to over 20k. This level is also now going to be index-linked.
Thirdly, what percentage of people went to uni 150 years ago? Currently it's about 40%. Perhaps social mobility isn't all down to University placement? Or would you rather sensationalise one variable?

~:smoking:

[Incongruous]

In other words, you lot believe in a hereditary dictatorship?

Besides, how would a Supreme Court assuming the role of monarch change that? And why does your president have to be political?

In other words you're being absurd.

Britain has Monarchy, many Britons like the Monarchy. They do not have to justify this in any way other than it is the tradition of their land and part of their culture and themselves as Britons. In this "modern" age we live in, it is rare for a Briton to be able to point to such a genuine piece of their culture, thus the now never ending scrutiny of what it is to be British. Feeling a sense of real belonging and conection to "the land" is in my opinion just as important as how a place is run, when people lose their national identity they lose any reason to keep on beinfg a nation. Dangerous things happen. Therefore I support the Monarchy not because I can justify it with neverending political reasonings but because I am sentimentally attatched to it, as being the last real bastion of nationality left, in these god awful modern times.

[Louis VI the Fat]

oh where to start...

Firstly, it reduced the money required to go to uni as money is paid back as a percentage of salary after graduation.
Secondly, it increased the threshold when one had to pay the money back - up from 15k to over 20k. This level is also now going to be index-linked.
Thirdly, what percentage of people went to uni 150 years ago? Currently it's about 40%. Perhaps social mobility isn't all down to University placement? Or would you rather sensationalise one variable?

~:smoking:People will face a debt of £60k to £80k, at an interest rate of 9%. Young families, just when they ought to settle down and do their bit to keep some sort of procreation of talent going.

Lower incomes are deterred by the prospect of high debt more than higher incomes. Next to lower income classes, it deters lower educated classes too. High tuition fees generally serve as a deterent to people of non-university educated backgrounds. They are more insecure, might not want to take their chances.
The better one's prospect of attaining a good position after graduation, the more sensible it is to study. This mechanism is greatly magnified by the tripling of tuition fees. Another mechanism is that talent being equal, those of less prestigious backgrounds face a lesser prospect in the job market. These two mechanisms conspire to enhance each other's effect, to keep people in their place.

Rather peculiarly, the measure might (/ will probably) end up not even saving the treasury any money in the first place.

[rory_20_uk]

Where does 9% come from? And 3 years, at 9k each - how does that become £60k? Are you assuming a 4 or 5 year degree?
They might have the debt, but again, they don't have to pay it off all at once. Only as a percentage of their salary if they earn more than a set amount. If the debt is not paid off it is eventially cancelled.

Yet, even though it is equal opportunity it's still not fair as the poor can't weigh up right adequately... Of course this isn't an issue they should deal with for reasons I can't quite understand: do a degree, get a crap job - nothing to pay. Is that really difficult to grasp? If it is, we're not dealing with Uni material in the first place.

Whether it will cost more in the end is an issue I am not qualified to address.

Those with money can always afford better things. It's why I'm thinking of getting a Ford, not an Aston Martin; I live in a house in a crap area and not a mansion in grounds. Nothing is going to offset this fully.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Where does 9% come from? And 3 years, at 9k each - how does that become £60k? With tuition fees this high, a student should not waste time on a job next to his study. He shall however need to eat. So three years of tuition fees plus three years of very basic needs of rent and food and medical care. 60k - 80k.
The parents of prospective students from higher income brackets can buy you a house, support their child financially quite a bit more, so he shall have to borrow far less, which makes it more attractive to study. Even if both the wealthy and the poor student both decide to study, the poor one will be tight down after his study by an enormous debt, limiting his options. Consider it a lifelong shackle as punishment for the insolence of wanting to better himself.


Also, I don't do sources. :laugh4: My source for the 9% is an interview with Lady Sharp:

The Liberal Democrats (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats) ran into fresh trouble today when the party's higher education (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/higher-education) spokeswoman in the Lords, Lady Sharp, said she was not sure she could vote tomorrow for the coalition government's trebling of tuition fees (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/tuition-fees).
Sharp told the Guardian: "I face a dilemma. I have a lot of reservations, and I am in the same position as many Liberal Democrat MPs. I have not decided how to vote."


Labour announced that it would stage a vote tomorrow to reject the Commons decision to treble tuition fees, ending doubts that Labour peers might feel constitutionally prevented from opposing secondary legislation.
Sharp said she was not sure the proposals would save the government money, adding: "That makes me question whether the whole exercise is worthwhile." She said: "The proposals will hit middle-income groups and burden young families with a household debt of £60,000 to £80,000 at an interest rate of 9%, just at a time when they are trying to raise a family and start a home. That is a serious disincentive."http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/13/lib-dem-lady-sharp-tuition-fees?INTCMP=SRC

[rory_20_uk]

3 years at 9k - 18k
Digs at £100 a week is £23,400 - assuming outgoings of £150 a week, every week
Medical cost - free
That's £41k

Oh, not waste time on a job. What are they doing for the other 20 weeks of the year when they're not at Uni? I agree - assuming part time work really messes with the calculations of how much it costs... £5 an hour for 30 hours a week... That's £150 a week. That's an unfortunate £3000 a year to remove from the total (since I've already done living costs for the whole year which is overoptimistic. And £5 is rather low for many jobs that a student can undertake.

So, assuming no interest (and by the way, an unsecured personal loan is c. 7%, an extended mortgage is c. 4%) we're down to £32k, assuming work during the holidays.

Of course the student with rich parents will have an easier ride. As will the student who is brighter, or the one who takes a commission with the armed forces. That's life. As has been said so many times its getting tiresome: yes, students have debts. But they don't have to pay them back straight away (although massive debts isn't a problem for countries though...) In America, students will have vast debts but it is relatively normal as they will get good jobs to pay them off - the classic one is the Medical Student after 8 years of costs and really no time to work for 4 of those years.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Where does 9% come from? And 3 years, at 9k each - how does that become £60k?

Actually, it is 13k a year, so 39k at the end. (You forgot the maintenance loan, to pay for accommodation, books and other things, and help towards other costs you might not be able to meet with a part-time job.)

[Strike For The South]

I take out loans and work 40 hrs a week

Suck it up

[rory_20_uk]

Actually, it is 13k a year, so 39k at the end. (You forgot the maintenance loan, to pay for accommodation, books and other things, and help towards other costs you might not be able to meet with a part-time job.)

I factored in £150 for digs and sundries, which unles you're living by yourself in the center of London is easily enough. Get a houseshare like everyone else. Books? Get second hand or use a library. I did after getting stung in my first year. Other things? If students want to have a good time then work for it like the adult they tell us they are.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I take out loans and work 40 hrs a week

Suck it up


Exactly. US universities, in the main, charge what they like (or rather what the market will bear) and they seem to be doing well enough. And their top universities actually import teaching and research talent, rather than export it.

Apart from Oxbridge, most British universities don't even exploit the alumnus system.

Finally, just how many Media Studies graduates from pointless ex-Polytechnics does the country need? Most employers consider most first degrees a useless encumbrance, so why shouldn't the students?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Exactly. US universities, in the main, charge what they like (or rather what the market will bear) and they seem to be doing well enough. And their top universities actually import teaching and research talent, rather than export it.

Apart from Oxbridge, most British universities don't even exploit the alumnus system.

Finally, just how many Media Studies graduates from pointless ex-Polytechnics does the country need? Most employers consider most first degrees a useless encumbrance, so why shouldn't the students?Brutal social Darwinism is an option a society can choose for itself, but don't call it by any other name.

The US in the 19th century had an enviably high social mobility in the 19th century. Then during the 20th the drawbridges were pulled up. The US middle classes are hurting at the moment. Strike has to take out loans and waste his talent working 40 hours a week, to pay for a provincial university. Meanwhile his less talented but wealthier countryman can cruise to a Harvard degree.

The UK, which went from a closed shop in the 19th to Scandinavian levels of social mobility by the end of the 1970s, is now sadly a near closed shop again. The current government has set about to destroy the 'near' in that phrase.

(This all despite Clegg's election promise of raising social mobility, and his personally overseeing the government's policy on social mobility. The LibDems are estranging their electorate with measures like closing higher education. Of the three main parties, 'meritocracy' is the defining call top arms of the LibDems)



Social mobility lower in US and Britain than in other advanced countries

Though higher education has continued to expand in order to meet the demands of industry for a skilled and educated workforce, this has been accompanied and funded by a sharp reduction in the level of grants to support students while at university.

Soon after taking up office in 1997, the Labour government abolished grants and introduced tuition fees. Thus, with the change in the funding arrangements for students, the expansion of higher education that was trumpeted as the bedrock of a new “meritocracy”—where every individual would have the right to prosper as a result of their hard work and talents—actually served to increase rather than reduce social inequality.

As the study points out, the recent legislation that will increase tuition fees to up to £3,000 a year, reinstitute a derisory £1,000-a-year grant for the very poorest students, and require the universities to introduce a complicated system of bursaries is likely to exacerbate the situation.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

[HoreTore]

I take out loans and work 40 hrs a week

Suck it up

In America, the poor have a dream that with hard work, they will get rich.

In Europe, the poor actually gets rich with hard work.

This is one of the reasons why.

[InsaneApache]

The UK, which went from a closed shop in the 19th to Scandinavian levels of social mobility by the end of the 1970s, is now sadly a near closed shop again. The current government has set about to destroy the 'near' in that phrase.

Nothing to do with the present lot but everything to do with Shirley Williams. :book:

[rory_20_uk]

Brutal social Darwinism is an option a society can choose for itself, but don't call it by any other name.

The US in the 19th century had an enviably high social mobility in the 19th century. Then during the 20th the drawbridges were pulled up. The US middle classes are hurting at the moment. Strike has to take out loans and waste his talent working 40 hours a week, to pay for a provincial university. Meanwhile his less talented but wealthier countryman can cruise to a Harvard degree.

The UK, which went from a closed shop in the 19th to Scandinavian levels of social mobility by the end of the 1970s, is now sadly a near closed shop again. The current government has set about to destroy the 'near' in that phrase.

(This all despite Clegg's election promise of raising social mobility, and his personally overseeing the government's policy on social mobility. The LibDems are estranging their electorate with measures like closing higher education. Of the three main parties, 'meritocracy' is the defining call top arms of the LibDems)

Clearly someone who didn't live through the 1970's in the UK.
Oddly, back then only about 5% of the population went to University. And the amount of money spent was probably less than it is now due to the massive rise in numbers. Good Old Labour opened the floodgates to encourage everyone to expect a "degree" (even if two of the three years are effectively A level retakes) and neglected to mention that the money was from the Government Credit Card.

I'm all for reintroducing the Grammar Schools and fully paid University places for the best students. But this would be meritocratic and hence unfair as that would create divergent outcomes...

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

What is it about middle class, privately educated socialists and their contempt for the working classes?

I come from a working class background and through my own merit I went to a Grammar school. I didn't, nor did my parents, pay a penny to go there. I was exposed to an education system as good as and in some ways better than a fee paying school. It was the making of me.

My elder brother even won a scholarship to Manchester Grammar, one of the best in the country.

Since then things have gone into reverse. Whilst I, my brother and my eldest son all own our own homes, my youngest son lives in a 'dead dog' council estate. He probably will until the day he dies.

The prognosis for my grandchildren is even more bleak.

One more reason to despise the socialists' half-baked mindset. :no:

[Banquo's Ghost]

The UK, which went from a closed shop in the 19th to Scandinavian levels of social mobility by the end of the 1970s, is now sadly a near closed shop again. The current government has set about to destroy the 'near' in that phrase.

Let me take your chronology at face value.

Up until the mid-seventies, the 11-plus streaming of children into grammar schools and secondary modern was widespread. University places were restricted to less than 5% of the population and demanded rigorous entrance standards. This is the educational backdrop for your golden years of social mobility.

Since then, comprehensive schools became the norm, the polytechnic colleges all got to call themselves universities and deliver shedloads of bachelor's degrees in David Beckham's Underpants as a Tool of Social Policy, and the stated aim of the last government was to have at least 50% of the population able to go to university and get a degree. Which they did, despite employers telling anyone who would listen that such degrees were worse than useless. This approach, according to you, underpins the contraction of social mobility.

Do I understand your thesis correctly? :evil:

As has been noted before, I await the consistent socialist argument that requires the working classes (who have much smaller chances of their offspring going to university) to pay via taxation for the sprogs of the middle class to go for free. I'm all for oppressing the poor, but that seems a bit iniquitous even for my tastes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brutal social Darwinism is an option a society can choose for itself, but don't call it by any other name.

The US in the 19th century had an enviably high social mobility in the 19th century. Then during the 20th the drawbridges were pulled up. The US middle classes are hurting at the moment. Strike has to take out loans and waste his talent working 40 hours a week, to pay for a provincial university. Meanwhile his less talented but wealthier countryman can cruise to a Harvard degree.

The UK, which went from a closed shop in the 19th to Scandinavian levels of social mobility by the end of the 1970s, is now sadly a near closed shop again. The current government has set about to destroy the 'near' in that phrase.

(This all despite Clegg's election promise of raising social mobility, and his personally overseeing the government's policy on social mobility. The LibDems are estranging their electorate with measures like closing higher education. Of the three main parties, 'meritocracy' is the defining call top arms of the LibDems)

Personally, I think these students should pay more back in loans, because their loans should cover all their expenses until they graduate.

I would love for someone to give me one of these "horrible" loans to pay for my PhD fees.

Oh woe!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As has been noted before, I await the consistent socialist argument that requires the working classes (who have much smaller chances of their offspring going to university) to pay via taxation for the sprogs of the middle class to go for free. I'm all for oppressing the poor, but that seems a bit iniquitous even for my tastes.

The poor should only be oppressed if one can convince them they are doing it to themselves.

terry Prachett was right to call it a "crab bucket".

[Furunculus]

hmmm, my dad came from a working class liverpool family that had never sent anyone to university, ended up with a research masters in biology and a successful teaching career. not bad for a dock-workers son, and not an ounce of 'privilege' in sight.

i, as the son of a teacher and a nurse, got into grammar school and ended up with a geology degree and a masters in business, again, not any huge degree of privilege.

of course this happened in those 'terrible' times when grammar schools existed, before the enlightened era of attempting to manufacture 50% media-studies graduates from school leavers.

[InsaneApache]

I didn't realise that you a scouser Furunculus. Perhaps I should put you on ignore.:sneaky: :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

I didn't realise that you a scouser Furunculus. Perhaps I should put you on ignore.:sneaky: :laugh4:

only half, and no accent, dad realised if he ever wanted a graduate job post-uni he'd better ditch the scouse. good move. terrible accent. :p

[Louis VI the Fat]

QUICK HIDE YER WALLETS EVERYONE

[Idaho]

only half, and no accent, dad realised if he ever wanted a graduate job post-uni he'd better ditch the scouse. good move. terrible accent. :p

On one hand a declaration of social mobility, and then within a few posts an acceptance that class is all pervasive.

[Furunculus]

On one hand a declaration of social mobility, and then within a few posts an acceptance that class is all pervasive.

your paradigm, not mine.

i don't concern myself with class or hold grievance against percieved social injustice.

dad came from a poor family and did what was necessary to remove himself from this situation.

twaddle about 'fairness' really plays no part.

i was taught to concentrate on improving myself, not resent forces that might hold me back. a far healthier outlook i feel, in part responsible for my naturally sunny disposition.

[rory_20_uk]

One can try to beat the system, but perhaps it is better to learn to thrive within it. If that involves loosing an accent then so be it. I was lucky enough not to have a frightful Devonshire accent - merely because one is born in a stable does not make one a donkey...


http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/demotivators/doubtdemotivationalposter.jpg

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

In America, the poor have a dream that with hard work, they will get rich.

In Europe, the poor actually gets rich with hard work.

This is one of the reasons why.

I'm not poor, who said anything about being poor?


Brutal social Darwinism is an option a society can choose for itself, but don't call it by any other name.

The US in the 19th century had an enviably high social mobility in the 19th century. Then during the 20th the drawbridges were pulled up. The US middle classes are hurting at the moment. Strike has to take out loans and waste his talent working 40 hours a week, to pay for a provincial university. Meanwhile his less talented but wealthier countryman can cruise to a Harvard degree.
)

When it becomes clear that the system is hurting the citzenry as a whole, decisoins must be made, these kids will have a bit of debt but they have a while to work it off, and trust me they can have all the fish and chips they want.

Coming out with 28,000~ in debt isnt bad as long as work during your uni time, most kids dont understand this

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One can try to beat the system, but perhaps it is better to learn to thrive within it. If that involves loosing an accent then so be it. I was lucky enough not to have a frightful Devonshire accent - merely because one is born in a stable does not make one a donkey...

~:smoking:

Likewise, my sister however is a real farmer.

[InsaneApache]

bye:)

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssosw1OHRs


Four police vs horde of terrorists one unarmed bloke in wheelchair.

Go get 'em lads! Britain's safer for it!


Language warning!

[Beskar]

You seen the Interview?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3awtgYV7Euw&annotation_id=annotation_196055&feature=iv

The Interviewer is a male member.

[Husar]

The interviewer sounds like he forgot his brain when he got up and went to work.

On a related note, Mr McIntyre should get a job and finance his studying, I heard there's a lot of open student jobs in construction for example...

[Louis VI the Fat]

While headlines are rightfully devoted to the horrific stress Charles and Camilla have had to endure over an egg pelted at their car, there is some good news too. Alfie Meadows looks set to live.

Twenty year old philosophy student Alfie's head was smashed in as he tried to flee a polcie charge. He was beaten to within an inch of his life by the police. Once brought to hospital, in near death condition, suffering from a stroke, bleeding severly, the police ordered the ambulance personel to...take him elsewhere, this is our hospital, police officers first.


Thank God for that one medic who would not let himself be intimidated by some cops. He insisted Alfie received the immediate care he needed, rather tahn be driven about some more. A three hour brain surgery followed.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/155156.html

[Rhyfelwyr]

Or maybe Alfie is just a drama queen, read what he said in past articles... he was practically setting himself up as a martyr to his mummy when he went off to play the rebel (he said people are going to die today, eh, lol). He rioted and he got hurt and suddely he turns on the waterworks...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Still, I don't think police in the UK had acquired official skull bashing privileges just yet. So there's definitely a case to answer there.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do tell, how many pipe bombs did he carry? Where was his car withexplosives? Where is the lead pipe he used to club policemen with?


A twenty year old who goes out for a protest. Then gets beaten to within an inch of his life. That what you had in mind when you paid your taxes for your police? To unleash some orcs with truncheons to club in the skulls of Britain's finest?


His mother Susan, 55, an English literature lecturer at Roehampton University, said: "He was hit on the head by a police truncheon.

"He said it was the hugest blow he ever felt in his life.

"The surface wound wasn't very big but, three hours after the blow, he suffered bleeding to the brain.

"He survived the operation and he's in the recovery room."

Mr Meadows was with a number of friends, including two lecturers, Nina Power, a colleague of his mother's, and Peter Hallward, a philosophy lecturer at Kingston University.

But as they tried to leave the area where protesters were being held in a police "kettling" operation, the second-year undergraduate suffered a blow to the head.

[Beskar]

Or maybe Alfie is just a drama queen

You know, you might not be ideologically aligned with the protestors, but suffering a major head injury, which caused a stroke, and other serious effects does not come under any definition of "Drama Queen" and he definitely not suffered a little 'boo-boo'. You have your right to your ideological opinion and whether or not you agree with the protests, but trying to completely dismiss something which evidently is quite serious is very... well, I be honest, I can't think of the exact word I want to use, so I will settle for "silly and makes you look foolish".

[rory_20_uk]

A (I hope) small subset of the police at these events goes waaaaay OTT.

The government reacted quickly to these events (like the last time when the police story changed from "protester hurt and protesters stopped help coming" to "we hit someone who wasn't demonstrating and stopped the ambulance getting through and help from protesters").

Now it is illegal to photograph police officers - next time it'll be illegal to have an alternate explanation to the police's.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Now it is illegal to photograph police officers - next time it'll be illegal to have an alternate explanation to the police's.

~:smoking:

too true, once had a camera confiscated by the police for posing in front of a police car wearing a flat-cap and ladies thong, this after a particularly boozy game of strip jenga with my lady flatmates.

my best-mate was likewise attired in another thong, only supplemented with a a del-boy jacket.

we three (inc the camerman) marched into the police station the next day and demanded the return of the camera and film from the super, who apologized for his colleagues rash action, and offered to develop the film himself with the offending pictures removed.

fun times.

[Beskar]

too true, once had a camera confiscated by the police for posing in front of a police car wearing a flat-cap and ladies thong, this after a particularly boozy game of strip jenga with my lady flatmates.

my best-mate was likewise attired in another thong, only supplemented with a a del-boy jacket.

we three (inc the camerman) marched into the police station the next day and demanded the return of the camera and film from the super, who apologized for his colleagues rash action, and offered to develop the film himself with the offending pictures removed.

fun times.

I didn't imagine your weekends would be quite like that, Veronicanus.

[Furunculus]

lol, that was quite typical really.

who is Veronicanus?

[Slyspy]

Normally I'm OK with the police, but I have no respect for them as a force for good in protest situations. As I said, just another gang up for a fight in my opinion. For example, while it is OK for a copper to swear at a protester and wave a baton at them harsh words from a protester towards a copper will see said protester dragged out of the crowd, subdued, arrested and imprisoned "for the public good". I'm not a great fan of threatening crowds with dogs or charging them with horses, though both are undoubtedly effective.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Say you are put in charge of the police. How do you answer?

1. Leave the protestors be. Traffic congestion, property damage are the price of free speech. No intervention should be made save to intervene to protect someone's life. NOTE: This will be seen as virtual inaction by those people whose property is at risk and may encourage a broader class of damage etc.

2. Leave the protestors be for the most part. Observe and intervene in the case of physical violence, arson, or other felony-level behaviors only. NOTE: this measure will involve judgement calls by police, some of which will be judeged poorly and will involve violence.

3. Leave the protestors be for the most part. Try to maintain an obvious (and hopefully intimidating) presence that serves to deter things from getting too violent. NOTE: Some of your police will cross the line in their efforts at quiet intimidation and round up in favor of thumping a few folks.

4. Move in formations with shields, horses, etc. to shepherd people away from unauthorized areas. If violence occurs, respond with limited violence (tear gas to break up groups; sonic discomfort tools; physical violence only to protect police and other persons who are directly threatened. NOTE: Some of your police will cross the line in their efforts at quiet intimidation and round up in favor of thumping a few folks.

5. Respond aggressively and with some force. Rather than implicit intimidation use moderate force to physically break up the proceedings. NOTE: This more aggressive stance is likely to generate even more incidents.

6. At the first angry shoutings or blocking of traffic, read the Riot Act. Fifteen minutes later, clear the streets with clubs and shields. NOTE: This will injure many and kill several.

7. The Napoleonic approach. NOTE: Street cleaning required at the conclusion of events.


So, where and how would you set things up?

[Brenus]

The Napoleonic approach. NOTE: Street cleaning required at the conclusion of events. This approach is not without risk for properties...

[Furunculus]

4. Move in formations with shields, horses, etc. to shepherd people away from unauthorized areas. If violence occurs, respond with limited violence (tear gas to break up groups; sonic discomfort tools; physical violence only to protect police and other persons who are directly threatened. NOTE: Some of your police will cross the line in their efforts at quiet intimidation and round up in favor of thumping a few folks.

[Banquo's Ghost]

One longs for the old days. Hussars and sabres.

At least then, the peasantry have an excuse for revolution.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that protesters need to be given clearer guidance as to which areas are allowed and which ones are not. Hopefully this would allow large numbers to protest peacefully, and to be aware that they will be moved if they deviate from these areas.

I don't know why water cannons are not used. They are used from a distance and are effective with far less damage than a line of officers going toe to toe with protesters / rioters. Similarly, horse charges are intimidating and generally work very fast with little damage except to the shorts of those caught off guard. Even tear gas is unlikely to cause the damage that seems to be doled out on occasion (although those with asthma had better keep well away from prohibited areas).
Tazers probably wouldn't work on the numbers required and is probably rather OTT in most cases. A lower power electric charge transmitted through the air via a laser mediated ion stream might be useful; I think the USA was working on a laser that was strong enough to cause discomfort rather than damage that would be another method.

And I think that those who carry home made shields / gas masks / weapons should be detained as clearly they're not there for a peaceful protest.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

And I think that those who carry home made shields / gas masks / weapons should be detained as clearly they're not there for a peaceful protest.

~:smoking:

oh yes, those lot make me long for french style riot police where a swift baton'ing is administered down a back alley!

[Husar]

Yes, yes, but there are more effective methods like carpet bombing and artillery shelling available today. Or park some tanks next to the allowed protest route and drive into the protesters once they touch the tanks.
It won't happen again.

Or clone Chuck Norris and place him everywhere along the allowed places.

IMO the problem is angryness. Ok, people protest because they're angry, but maybe they should seperate themselves more from the real troublemakers instead of staying near them. How about if a guy throws rocks at the police, the other protesters grab him and hand him to the police?
But they don't, because dem coppers are the enemy and they're all bad anyway and we'd rather cover him with our innocent bodies, then whine when we get hit.
I've never been to a protest so I can just assume that, of course there are bad policemen as well, but as usual when two groups clash, it's hardly so that one is completely innocent and the other isn't.

[Louis VI the Fat]

shepherd people away from unauthorized areasThere are no unauthorized areas for the people.

The people for their part, however, are at liberty to proclaim any area off limits to authorities.


The Napoleonic approach. NOTE: Street cleaning required at the conclusion of events. Hah, 'street cleaning'! There won't be a street left when French students protest. When done, one shall have to completely rebuild Paris, yet again.

Sous les pavés, la plage! :beam:

Underneath the cobblestones, the beach. That is, destroy the hard and unforgiving outer layer of society, and the softness can reach the surface, and we shall walk in the sun and play on the beach. More immediately, one works towards this utopia by personally digging up the cobblestones of Paris and pelting them at the police.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Underneath the cobblestones, the beach. That is, destroy the hard and unforgiving outer layer of society, and the softness can reach the surface, and we shall walk in the sun and play on the beach. More immediately, one works towards this utopia by personally digging up the cobblestones of Paris and pelting them at the police.

I was of the impression that under the cobblestones were the corpse-filled ditches of the Champ de Mars. :inquisitive:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was of the impression that under the cobblestones were the corpse-filled ditches of the Champ de Mars.You are quite right. But still it is beach, Banquo.

Do you know why the beaches in some Pacific islands are so white, so beautiful, paradise itself? Because that fine white isn't sand. It is coral reef. Fine chalkstone. The remains of crushed living beings.

Like these Islands of paradise, the streets of Paris are paved with the bones of living beings. The miserable ones, crushed in both life and death. A dreadful thought to some. Glorious to others, who use both their memory, their plight and their physical remains to stay true to them and build a paradise on earth of it.

See? All it takes is a little imagination. Which brings us nicely to another 1968 student protest slogan: l'imagination prend le pouvoir! :balloon2:

https://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2361/paris68serge.jpg

[Banquo's Ghost]

You are quite right. But still it is beach, Banquo.

Do you know why the beaches in some Pacific islands are so white, so beautiful, paradise itself? Because that fine white isn't sand. It is coral reef. Fine chalkstone. The remains of crushed living beings.

Like these Islands of paradise, the streets of Paris are paved with the bones of living beings. The miserable ones, crushed in both life and death. A dreadful thought to some. Glorious to others, who use both their memory, their plight and their physical remains to stay true to them and build a paradise on earth of it.

See? All it takes is a little imagination. Which brings us nicely to another 1968 student protest slogan: l'imagination prend le pouvoir! :balloon2:

I really do admire your eloquence. :bow:

I would have given much to hear your speeches from The Mountain, citizen.

[Furunculus]

in related news the fire-extinguisher cretin has been jailed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8252480/Tuition-fees-sixth-form-student-jailed-for-throwing-fire-extinguisher.html

Hoorah!