Rioting students attack Royal car

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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..................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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!

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.

*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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

our royal family is not known for fleeing:

http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/....asp?aid=35657
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch...oyalfamily.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

James II?

Edward VIII?

Your knowledge of history lets you down again.

---

when was the first time champ?

Quote:

---

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?

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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. ]

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

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!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

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:

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!?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

The Liberal Democrats ran into fresh trouble today when the party's 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.
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/2...ees?INTCMP=SRC

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.)