Dr Gloom 21924 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Just popped in to say Im quite happy to have the Royal family, think we are a better country for having them and hope they remain in place forever. well of course you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33231 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I was sitting on the fence till CT gave his opinion. Thanks CT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Just saw some pics of the nurse with the queen...Interesting belt buckle. Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 So they ended up naming it George, the same name that he was always going to be called. The cynic in me suspects that they may have delayed the announcement of his name in order to maximise news coverage. A proper little Geordie Fancy a Mackem being anti-royalist.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 A proper little Geordie Fancy a Mackem being anti-royalist.... ??? CT is pro-royalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 i was on about the thread starter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 11387 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Three high court judges have given permission for an appeal to be mounted against a decision to conceal details of Prince Charles's lobbying campaigns.The Guardian will seek to overturn a high court ruling this month that the prince's private efforts to influence public policies should remain secret. Lord Judge, the lord chief justice of England and Wales, and two other judges have allowed the newspaper to appeal. The appeal will be the latest stage in an eight-year battle by the newspaper to view a set of letters written by the prince to ministers in seven government departments over a nine-month period. It is due to be heard in the court of appeal later this year. The cabinet has decided that the letters must remain hidden after deciding that they could undermine the public's perception of the prince's political neutrality. Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, has said that if the letters werepublished, there was a risk that the heir to the throne would be "viewed by others as disagreeing with government policy". He said: "Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king." He added that the 27 letters between the prince and government ministers were "particularly frank" and contain his "most deeply held personal views and beliefs". The prince has long been accused of seeking to change government policies from his unelected position by writing private letters that have become known as "black spider memos" because of his handwriting. The battle over the letters started in 2005 when the Guardian submitted a freedom of information request for the correspondence. The government fought the request but lost at a freedom of information tribunal last year. The tribunal ordered the publication of the letters on the grounds that it was "in the public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government". A month later, however, Grieve, with cabinet backing, issued a little-used veto to block the publication. Grieve decided that the letters "contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality". The Guardian challenged the lawfulness of the veto, but lost in the high court this month when Lord Judge and the other judges ruled that Grieve had acted properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 They've got their grubby hands in everything. It's astounding to me that these letters are being kept from public purview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 "seeks to influence". Its astounding how people just see what they want to see. Nothing suggests he had any influence on anything. Who cares if he is not politically neutral if he has no influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 "seeks to influence". Its astounding how people just see what they want to see. Nothing suggests he had any influence on anything. Who cares if he is not politically neutral if he has no influence. Mi6 swears alligence to the Queen, so beware ignoring Charles late night rambling letter writing about architecture and homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4386 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 "seeks to influence". Its astounding how people just see what they want to see. Nothing suggests he had any influence on anything. Who cares if he is not politically neutral if he has no influence. The higher echelons including mps will be fawning twats eager to please. One example is how he got his way over chelsea barracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 If he does a bit of pro bono pro homo thats up to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17274 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 "wealthy and powerful aristocat seeks to gain influence"...its not really story of the century iyam..he wants things done his way in what he no doubt considers to be his country. Does it matter that much?..its not exactly a crime against humanity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17274 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Having said that, using the courts to hush it up is bang out of order, hang the cunt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Some of his views are perfectly reasonable. I admit not all but its not like he's a raging fascist who hates the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Charles tops up on magic mushrooms before penning obscure letters on the 'matters of the day'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 "seeks to influence". Its astounding how people just see what they want to see. Nothing suggests he had any influence on anything. Who cares if he is not politically neutral if he has no influence. You're kidding yourself if you think he has no influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 You're kidding yourself if you think he does. This one can go round in circles forever without any evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 You're kidding yourself if you think he does. This one can go round in circles forever without any evidence. Must admit my evidence is pretty anecdotal, but it's pretty much accepted that he has influenced the use of homeopathy paid for by the NHS I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Is it, or is it just a well founded assumption? Anyway, my point is, he's not someone whose views should be taken note of, but yet they are, because of his birthright. Its just really irritating for me to have his views on 'allopathy' taken with some credence, for example. And that's before the lobbying is considered. Agree with you the UK is a 'decent' country and in general preferable to the US. Not sure the monarchy has anything to do with that though, as evidenced by many other 'decent' European republic's or countries like Holland where the monarchy is largely irrelevant. I'm not saying the monarchy influences it either way, I'm saying they don't have any effect at all. I know it's mainly anecdotal and I've never looked into it, but there are too many cases of people who perform poorly academically and are clearly smart. obviously there is a correlation between IQ and academic achievement, I'm mainly taking umbrage because if it's an exact measure of IQ, then I'm a fucking moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 I agree the uk is pretty decent in those terms - I do however think it could be a lot better. Also capitalism needed a huge piece of state intervention five years ago to prevent its demise so I think its overrated personally. corporatism needed bailing out. regarding corporations as legal entities, politicians being in bed with them, allowing lobbying by them at all. corporatism is evil, capitalism is natural. I guess corporatism is natural as well, which is why it needs to be legislated against, but I'm all ears and open to what we could possibly replace capitalism with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 corporatism needed bailing out. regarding corporations as legal entities, politicians being in bed with them, allowing lobbying by them at all. corporatism is evil, capitalism is natural. I guess corporatism is natural as well, which is why it needs to be legislated against, but I'm all ears and open to what we could possibly replace capitalism with. They've already started it. Post-consumerism and sustainabitliy is the order of the day...Of course it won't apply to the top 3% only the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now