Bypassblade Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Apparently not. It falls under the more recent 1986 Public Order Act so put it away. Well I don't do it, and if I get caught short I go somewhere discreet it's not just zip lob and with me it's unavoidable given the number of times I pee daily so bound to get caught, normally it's in Asda so can use loo but sometimes I'm out on scooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 What would the president do that would be different? He wouldn't be given the job based on the pure qualification of coming out of a womb. Why would it need to be a politician? They're the people generally involved in politics, sadly. If it's a party politician then you could bet that most people wouldn't have voted for him/her anyway [...] is that fair? I find that ironic in a thread about monarchy. An attack on democracy, and all the rubbish that comes with it, is not a defence of monarchy. Politicians are mostly awful, we can agree. However, I will never agree with giving people hereditary power or priviledge. It's outdated and anachronistic, and is capable of putting the most awful people on a throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 He wouldn't be given the job based on the pure qualification of coming out of a womb. aThey're the people generally involved in politics, sadly. bI find that ironic in a thread about monarchy. An attack on democracy, and all the rubbish that comes with it, is not a defence of monarchy. Politicians are mostly awful, we can agree. However, I will never agree with giving people hereditary power or priviledge. It's outdated and anachronistic, and is capable of putting the most awful people on a throne. a...The monarch is apolitical.. why would we want to replace him/her with a politician? b...So having one undemocratic head replaced by another is progress? With regards to the last point.. I'd sooner have a "most awful person" in a position with no power than in an executive one.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Why should the ownership of a stolen communal resource determine the life chances of any child... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 a...The monarch is apolitical This monarch is apolitical. The next may not be. why would we want to replace him/her with a politician? A politician and a written constitution for the people. Because giving someone power based purely on which womb they popped out of is a form of madness. b...So having one undemocratic head replaced by another is progress? That's a very loaded question. We can both play those games. Having a democratic head replace a monarch is backwards? I'd sooner have a "most awful person" in a position with no power Our monarchy has power. That's that statement dead. And, I repeat - an attack on democracy is not a defence of monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 This monarch is apolitical. The next may not be. A politician and a written constitution for the people. Because giving someone power based purely on which womb they popped out of is a form of madness. That's a very loaded question. We can both play those games. Having a democratic head replace a monarch is backwards? Our monarchy has power. That's that statement dead. And, I repeat - an attack on democracy is not a defence of monarchy. If there was a referendum on abolishing the monarchy, who do you think would win? I feel a poll coming on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Why should the ownership of a stolen communal resource determine the life chances of any child... Children's life chances are determined by so many things, the minority who are born into royalty or other extreme privilege aren't necessarily to be envied. Personally, I'd rather my children/grandchildren achieved their potential by their own merits with help and support from us. Starting out with very little can sometimes be the spur that makes people want to do better - some successful people (if we're talking money) have come from nothing, and some who've been born into riches have had real problems throughout their lives. I wouldn't be a royal for a gold pig. I view them as having privilege but at the cost of a normal, private life. The royal heritage, its history and pageantry is held in very high regard by millions here and abroad. Surely that's more of a positive than a negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 As a nation we can't offer the rest of the world glorious beaches, a hot sunny climate and warm blue seas as an attraction to tourists. What we can offer them is our history, tradition and heritage, something the Americans in particular can't get enough of. We republicans aren't suggesting that we erase all of British history. Quite the opposite, let's turn Buckingham Palace and all the other royal estates into museums. That way, we can make even more money from tourists who want to experience a taste of our history and tradition. ---------- Post added 23-07-2013 at 18:11 ---------- Is being a member of the Royal Family a life of luxury??Yes, clearly. ---------- Post added 23-07-2013 at 18:13 ---------- a...The monarch is apolitical.. why would we want to replace him/her with a politician?Just wait and see 'till Prince Charles becomes King. He meddles with politics all the time, and secretly too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Is being a member of the Royal Family a life of luxury?? If being a member of the royal family was a job you could apply for, I wouldn't want it. Maybe the job would have looked more appealing a few generations ago, but not today. If I was that well off, I would want to buy a Bugatti Veyron and spend my live on a yacht catching Sward Fish, drinking Scotch and smoking Cuban cigars! you know it's amazing how many monarchists ( not saying you are one by the way) come out with some version of that one. Despite which, only one of them that I can recall walked away from the 'job'. It's not obligatory you know, any one of them can walk away & choose to live a reasonably normal life if they want. They don't though, do they? In answer to the OP, because for some weird reason that I can never understand, a large number of people in Britain appear to have a servile gene. This gene makes them accept, apparently quite happily, being referred to as 'subjects' from the verb 'subjugate' originally Latin for' conquer & bring under control'. They are also apparently happy to be described as 'commoners' meaning 'one of the ordinary or common people as opposed to the aristocracy.' Definitions courtesy of the OED. Now, if someone were to refer to me in such derogatory terms to my face it would end badly. Despite which, many seem to relish the opportunity to kowtow to people who have achieved little in life other than to be born into a particular family. No accounting for taste . Having said which, I wish the new baby & his parents a happy life. They had no control over the accident of birth, so I bear them no personal animosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 If there was a referendum on abolishing the monarchy, who do you think would win? I feel a poll coming on...... I'm not a Royalist, but if put to a referendum I think it would be kept despite all the detractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.