It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

(UK) Should Prince Harry be banned from membership of The Conservative Party?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
The Conservative Party is the party of the establishment and hence the royal family for their not least religious constitutional basis. No one in Britain is expected to bow to anyone outside the country.

A young conservative recently got banned from the Conservative Party for dressing up as Madelaigne McCann who tragically went missing a year ago.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Meanwhile, our Prince Harry in this non racist environment regularly refers to a 'Paki.' Should he also be banned from any association with the Party that supports his family most?

news.bbc.co.uk...

Harry has dressed as a Nazi before at a party

news.bbc.co.uk...

and maybe should not express political leanings, not just because of his constitutional role, but embarrasment he causes generally......

Or should we all just have a bit of fun at his expense?




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I wouldn't invite him to my party lol.

He should just be banned, period. Him and the rest of his royalty cohorts.

You don't need rulers (or stars) to look up to.

They cost the taxpayer about $80 million a year. I know some inner city neighbourhoods that could really benefit from those taxes.

The Royals have so much personal wealth, why are they still sucking the peasants dry?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I wouldn't invite him to my party lol.

He should just be banned, period. Him and the rest of his royalty cohorts.

You don't need rulers (or stars) to look up to.

They cost the taxpayer about $80 million a year. I know some inner city neighbourhoods that could really benefit from those taxes.

The Royals have so much personal wealth, why are they still sucking the peasants dry?


No, I would not invite him to hold any political line lol. Our royal family serve two purposes:

1. Tourism really.

2. More importantly, in this land you bow to the monarch above all others. Legally this is correct. This means that Papists cannot rule our country because they bow to an (alien) Vatican, not their own people, and as well as Catholics demand the same as Muslims. It's quite stable really. We bow to each other and no one else.

3. All snobs try that ladder rather than economical ladders, though corruption intertwines them to a degree.......



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 

I don't know how it is with heirs to the throne, but the King or Queen cannot be a member of any political party, because he or she embodies the State; the ruler must represent all his subjects, not just a portion of them, and therefore cannot be partisan - at least, not overtly.

Harry appears to take after his paternal grandfather.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by redled
...Our royal family serve two purposes:


Yeah I know the party line I'm English.

Sorry but none of that justifies $80m a year from the tax payer.

Go sell a piece of yer jewelry for gods sake, we're all just trying to keep food on our freakin' plates.

They have their own wealth, they pay for nothing, they're sucking leaches with their fangs stuck hard into the flesh of the British people.

They're not some cute institution for the sake of tourism, they're in-bred parasites.




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Umm. Well this 'Paki' remark is not all you think it is. If someone you know has a nickname that they call themselves by and let us others also make this your nickname then i cannot see this being racist - unless you are seeing it that way. As far as i am aware, he was referring to his friend which went by the nickname of 'paki'. He did not just call him that as a racist remark - he was calling his friend by the name he was known by, by his friends. If you still viwe it as racist - then are many of us guilty of calling our freinds by their nicknames like chalky ect. wven though thats who they have told you to call them by? I suppose it depends on how PC the world wants to be.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Harry is an idiot, Will is probably an idiot - the throne is mightedly *ed.

How come the States doesn't come over and take over?


 
Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Jan 12 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


'Paki', a nickname?

I find that hard to believe. Unless of course his 'friends' nicknamed him that, and they think it's really funny, and the guy really hates it but says nothing because it's 'prince harry'...


I guess the guy he said looked like a 'rag-head' was just another friend with a cool nickname.


In truth, the sole purpose of this parasitical and unscrupulous family is to serve as a repository for ‘history’ and ‘tradition’, which of course provides the glaring iniquities of capitalism with some form of moral authority...
Honestly considered, the contribution made to society by Harry and his greedy and insensitive clan is zilch. Each one is happy to consume in a day as much resources and commodities as 100 members of the working class, indeed 10000 times as much as a small African village. Yet we are encouraged to bow with suppliant’s before this bunch of indifferent, self-seeking leaches like imbeciles, crying and sobbing at their misfortune, debating their transgressions, negligent of the immense global suffering of our own class?....

class-warfare.blogspot.com...

Don't apologise for these scum, they need to be exposed for what they are.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Some people seriously need to get a sense of humour and stop taking everything so damn seriously. I'm no fan of the royal family, but this is definitely being blown out of proportion. Prince Harry knew this man, they are friends, it was simply just a form of mockery or a piss take. Something firends or work mates do to each other every second of the day. If you think this is bad, then some of you should try working on a building site.
Lets face it, the media are renown for their negativity and will never miss an opportunity to drag someone down to their level.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 


Harry doesn't work on a building site. Workers on building sites don't have the power, wealth and influence harry does. There is a world of difference.

It's not about being offended, it's about exposing the ruling elite for what they really are.

If I am expected to give someone respect, who wishes to rule over me, then that person had better be more saintly than god, otherwise why should I? There are lots of 'construction workers' who I have far more respect for, and ask for a lot less in return.

What's harry done for us lately?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Whatever you think of Prince Harry, he's still a human being like the rest of us and has the same flaws. I imagine fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan is a lot more stressful than working on any building site and in those situations people tend to say things in the spur of the moment, that they don't really mean. He's apologised, what more do you want?

You're right about one thing, Prince Harry is no Saint, but if the Bible is anything to go by, neither is God.




[edit on 12-1-2009 by kindred]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Totally off topic but I had to say :

The difference is that spending money on the royal family is like placing it in the grail of the nation's national character. Spending money on an inner city area is throwing money down the drain.

So the queen costs each taxpayer 63p... so what? Gordon brown takes a heck of a lot more and offers a heck of a lot less.

Think about what the establishment of the royal household does each year:

1. They attract tourists

2. They maintain a sense of national identity and character

3. They maintain palaces, country homes, manors etc all around the country.

What would you reds do after destroying the monarchy... turn Buckingham palace into a tractor factory? Not so sure that tourists would be queuing up to see that any time soon...

The family themselves may not be especially bright (an understatement, if you look at their academic achievements)... but the institution itself is worth preserving if only from a pragmatic point of view.

What has spending on inner cities brought us? Nothing. What has increased spending on quangos, middle management and consultants brought us? Nothing.

If the royal family are bunch of upper class, bourgeoisie, peasant blood suckers; then governments are lower class, crooked, self serving, tax-grabbing money wasters.

You think 63p a year is bad? Gordon steals that from you each time you buy a single litre of petrol. Who does more for you in return? Think about it pragmatically.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
The difference is that spending money on the royal family is like placing it in the grail of the nation's national character. Spending money on an inner city area is throwing money down the drain.


That's just your opinion and I highly disagree.


So the queen costs each taxpayer 63p... so what? Gordon brown takes a heck of a lot more and offers a heck of a lot less.


They have their own wealth, they don't need to take anybodies money. The queen alone has a personal wealth of around $400 million. If she really cared about her 'subjects', that wealth could be put to some practical use instead of sitting around collecting dust. I just don't see the point of such personal wealth. What does she do with it? She keeps 400 mil on hand in case of emergencies?
I mean c'mon what's the point other than some kind of selfish desire to have more and be 'better' than the 'common rabble'.

And people actually support this crap.

I agree though that gordon brown shouldn't get your taxes either. So bad comparison. From the houses of parliament to buckingham palace they're all scum.

You know if the British working class hadn't been destroyed by the Thatcher government, and Britain still had an industry, we wouldn't need to even worry about tourism. How does tourism help the people in the industrial north, or the midlands?

Why would not paying the royal family taxes effect tourism?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I completely agree with you. There's no justification for the perpetuation of the remnants of an archaic system of power relations that most of the free world has soundly rejected as highly injust and socially immoral.

I've believed for some time that the royal family should be done away with, if not to stem the injustice of subsidizing them for nothing, but more out of respect and recognition of the destructive force of the corrupt monarchial system.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
As far as I'm concerned the sooner we get rid of the royals the better. As for Harry calling a fellow soldier a paki. . . Its the kind of stupidity we've come to expect from the ginger royal Isn't it? I think the russians had the right idea. . .



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Principally because the upkeep of the institutional holdings of the monarchy (ie palaces, etc) cost a horrendous amount each year.

This is offset by the income from tourism. Your blase dismissal of an industry that brings in billions of pounds each year is rather worrying. Having a state subsidized, tariff barrier protected manufacturing industry results in only a Soviet style state. How does Russia compare to the UK today? Should tourism be dismissed entirely just because Southerners reap more benefit from it?

All Im saying is that if you look at the issue economically, it would be worse to abolish the monarchy. Even without the queen around, someone would still have to pay for the upkeep for castles and palaces.

Are you not supporting the notion that industry is a more worthwhile pursuit than tourism? Are you not just falling into the old class warfare crap by hinting that the working man who uses his hands is superior to the thinking man who uses his head?

If nothing else, you ought to look at the monarchy as a quaint relic and a financially rewarding necessary "evil". In the grand scheme of things, centralised government is a far, far greater evil. As I said, the Queen might be given 63p forcibly taken from you; but Brown pisses billions up a wall and you don't bat an eyelid... so long as its the rich that get stiffed with the bill.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Are you not supporting the notion that industry is a more worthwhile pursuit than tourism? Are you not just falling into the old class warfare crap by hinting that the working man who uses his hands is superior to the thinking man who uses his head?


Actually the tourist industry would not suffer overly if the Queen and the monarchy were to be abolished, we're in a slump tourism wise at the minute anyway, but not that many people visit the UK with the primary goal of seeing the Queen. Tourism would therefore I am sure continue to pay for the upkeep of all those castles, as it is really our history that people come to see. It is just unfortunate that we have, so far failed to accept the monarchism should be confined to there too. People would still though pay to see where the Kings and Queens used to live.

In terms of not using our heads, one of our major growth 'industries' uses only that, currently our education system is one of our best exports. Thousands of overseas students pay to be educated in our universities and colleges every year. This allows greater inward investment which is why we are finally getting back on track in terms of cutting edge and blue skies research. I don't think that those students would stop coming if the Queen was demoted.

The Queen is a waste of money that we can ill afford. Brown may be pissing our economy up the wall in your opinion, or he may be trying to stop it going down the drain. Either way, we need change, and perhaps getting rid of the monarchy is as good a place to start as any. If only we could do it without the revolution.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Hey, we can give the palaces to homeless people. The royal family can have cardboard boxes and a reserved spot on the pavement.

Palaces and castles huh? So you don't think a personal wealth of $400m is enough to cover that? Cut back on the caviar or something...


How about charging people to visit to help cover costs, oh wait they already do that, 15 quid for an adult ticket to windsor castle. You know the one the queen asked the tax payers to cover the repair bill from the fire? The castle get 15million a year from tax payers for upkeep. Charley has a 14 million pound income. And they had the nerve to ask for another million a year.

They are not hurting for cash for their castles, they are squeezing every last penny they can from their 'subjects'. The royal family didn't get so wealthy being generous.

[edit on 1/13/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So you're English, well why not go somewhere else if you don't like the fact you were born into a country that has a monarchy, as of course they were born into said monarchy? They can help that as much as you can, remember you don't pick your family.

Also whats the beef with building sites? Are you suggesting that because Prince Harry made a remark that was taken to be racist by some people, he belongs on a building site? What are you saying about tradesmen? I'll let you answer before I suggest that you may be sounding a little bit bigoted about certain people yourself.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by fanthorpe]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by fanthorpe
So you're English, well why not go somewhere else if you don't like the fact you were born into a country that has a monarchy


Lol I AM somewhere else...But having said that why should I go somewhere else? It's not about me not liking them, it's about them being a waste of money and an institution, and class, that isn't needed.


Also whats the beef with building sites? Are you suggesting that because Prince Harry made a remark that was taken to be racist by some people, he belongs on a building site? What are you saying about tradesmen? I'll let you answer before I suggest that you may be sounding a little bit bigoted about certain people yourself.


Ah, it's no wonder I have such a hard time in posts like this, it's because either I'm not explaining myself very well, or you are not reading very well and filling in the blanks with assumptions?

I have NO beef with building sites. I was pointing out the fallacy of that other posters idea that I have a double standard. It's not me that makes the standards it's people in the ruling classes.

I have no beef with people at work calling each other names, I have a beef with an institution that has been racist and destructive for hundreds of years. Harry just allowed you to see a glimpse of what they are really about. Workers just reflect the society they have been raised in.

Please take the time to re-read through the thread, and see if you come to a different conclusion as to what I'm saying.

I'm not a bigot and hate is not my motivation. Remember the meek shall inherit the Earth, the arrogant and violent who destroy will themselves be destroyed.

It's not just harry, or phillip, or any of the royals, it's the WHOLE DAMMED INSTITUTION OF CONTROL AND POWER!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join