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...Scandals AND Freedom

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
For all us UK folk out here, I am concerned with the war on Iraq and Politics, for instance on the news during the Iraq war we was shown that saddam lives in big house’s and manors while his population suffer, however our royal family also live in big plaices and house’s and have the “civil list” while we have a large number of poor people in our country, with pensioners dieing of cold, yet one of the reason’s for going to war was give freedom to the Iraq’s, what about our freedom? is not our own head of state a “queen” which is there because of the divine right (given by god)? Ok I hear you saying “she is only a figurehead” but it’s the Principles of the thing, how can we follow democracy and freedom when we do not have it fully in our own country? We only have representation democracy which means we have not got the right to vote on key issues, did you know in 2001 they spent £97,000 just on wine? Yet people are dyeing of cold in the winter, I find this unacceptable, I find this hypercritical that we can say we love freedom, yet not actually have it fully our selves, our troops are dieing for freedom yet not actually have it in their own country, have we got the right to speck our mind? Only if the government feel’s it is appropriate and they do this in the form of political correctness, we are becoming a “nanny” state which soon turns into a totalitarian state, instead of invading countries which have no army, money or even WMD’s, why don’t get a real democracy installed here?

It’s the same problem as the Vietnam war, America called in conscription to go fight a war, so American people was losing their own freedoms to go fight for the freedoms of others? That does not make sense to me, does it make sense to anyone else?

Does anyone agree?

Civil List…

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Hi wrtworthy,

I'm afraid I'd disagree with you. We didn't get rid of Saddam because he lived in big houses, but because of the kind of leader he was and the threat some people say he was to the west. Prince William doesn't torture people for the fun of it, and as far as I'm aware Ol' Lizzy isn't trying to develop nuclear or biological weapons... you can't really compare the two "regimes".


Sure they spend £97,000 on wine, but why not? Who's rights is she encroaching on? Who's freedom is being denied?

In fact the Royal family offer the nation exceptionally good value. £10 million per year (from the BBC link) is peanuts... absolutely nothing. They give that away every week on the lottery, only the Royal family actually put something back!

In fact they put back FAR more than they take out. Even if you discount their official and foreign duties, the charity work, the princes trust etc, the political benefits of having allegiance to a person and tradition, rather then an piece of cloth or a legal document... disregarding all that, there's still the £11.7 BILLION that foreign tourists spend each year in the UK. How much of that is due to our Royal heritage? if it's more than 0.1% then they are good value


So, with regards to royalty, they are most definitely not a drain on the country's resources.

It's interesting though that on the one hand you oppose the idea of a nanny state(quite rightly in my book), while on the other you seem to suggest the state should be responsible for people being poor and pensioners dying of cold? Poor people are free to work, or educate themselves, or save, or start a business, or pay their granny's heating bill, or move granny into the spare room. It's not the government's fault that no-one wants to look after their grandparents anymore!



[edit on 20/8/04 by muppet]

[edit on 20/8/04 by muppet]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by muppet

they spend £97,000 on wine, but why not?



Why not? Thats sick. Regardless of whatever fanfair events they put on claiming to "give back", what about the people giving out he money they work for that wine. Just so these people who think they are top of the world by right can dine the best, live the best, and be treated the best. They are no better than the guy who dilivers my milk, at least he puts his back into his work and gets up early. I mean it must get tiring having to choose between palaces, or where to jet of to next, or who's hand to shake. . . . .



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Out with the monarchy, the royal family should be removed as head as state, its not fair having an unelected head of state for a so called "democracy"
Repulic would be the right move for our country.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
i'm confused by all this:

From what i understand the Royal Family generates a huge profit for Britain
So without the Royal Family, that huge amount of cash would be gone




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Yeah, it would be okay if, like the "OLD DAYS" the monarchy whipped the country, and fought in battles, and actually contributed, it might not be so bad. But they do nothing. They don't "work", sweat isn't in their vocabulary. When someone like Prince Harry goes to help a poor nation for a week, which with his kind of money should be mandatory, he is portrayed as an angel.

They don't deserve what they have, they have no right to sit iin their palace and look out at our pathetic society, laughing no doubt. It is like a joke, a family of such immense un-earned wealth, living in the same city as people who work their arse off to pay for water and electricity.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
i'm confused by all this:

From what i understand the Royal Family generates a huge profit for Britain
So without the Royal Family, that huge amount of cash would be gone





And what about the money they get from the state for land,etc

All that money could be spent on the road system, health, police,etc,etc



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
damn i'm confused


i'm not going to take sides on this topic, as i don't understand it very well



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I say sell buckingham palace to to an American billionaire and then build 10 thousand homes for the people who are dying in the street or the kids who have no parents and nowhere to stay.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Having a non-political head of state, particularly of such stature as the Queen, has many advantages.

She fulfills the role of the flag/constitution in other countries, giving some protection against extremists governments. Allegiances are sworn to her, not inanimate object or abstract concept, like in the US..

She is useful for foreign relations. In real-politik in can be useful to be able to subdue or massage the ego of a foreign leader, and a non political royal visit can be just the ticket.

Plus..even though the Monarch never speaks out politically, it's good to have that PR nuke available in case she has to In this day and age of global intrigue, conspiracy and scandal, knowing there is a major force in this country, who stands for this country, and would be listened too globally, is a good thing.

... and as for the wine bill? It sounds like a lot less than the average City financial institution probably pays in corporate entertainment. If you want to know who's really ripping you off, check your pension fund!!

[edit on 5/9/04 by muppet]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Thats the point muppet (no derogatory terms intended, lol), if it came to the crunch, who would really be scared of the monarchy? They have no real power. A foreign extremist wouldn't drop his weapons at the mention of the Queen



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
i'm confused by all this:

From what i understand the Royal Family generates a huge profit for Britain
So without the Royal Family, that huge amount of cash would be gone



Well I don't have any figures on the breakdown, but we DO receive 11.7 billion from in foreign tourism each year, and I honestly think at least a few percent of that is due to the appeal of a living, breathing Monarchy..

My main argument is it's favour is related to the British political system in general, and why it's such a good system as it is.

If we had a republic, we'd need a president. This would split the Executive away from the House, and and you'd end up with a system like in the states where the most powerful political figure doesn't even need to debate his course of actions with the parliament. People complain about Blair not consulting parliament as he should? I'd expect the same and worse if we became a republic, and you can throw mid-term leadership challenges out of the window...



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
Thats the point muppet (no derogatory terms intended, lol), if it came to the crunch, who would really be scared of the monarchy? They have no real power. A foreign extremist wouldn't drop his weapons at the mention of the Queen


No, but what if some fascist leader started pushing for a dictatorship in the UK? Could they bang the patriotic drum in support of their own policies? Would the "patriots" fall in line behind the government, or the Monarch? I think the latter... (though it is a hypothetical situation, I know)

Personally I like the separation of government and "state". It can stop people (and politicians) getting their loyalties mixed up!


Your right though, she's not much defense against terrorism..



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
And what about the money they get from the state for land,etc

All that money could be spent on the road system, health, police,etc,etc


I admit infinite, it is very hard to justify inequality, but I do think it is a fact of life while people have the right to private ownership. If the Royal family didn't own the land, someone else would, and the money would still flow away to shareholders.

I don't mind if someone else is vastly richer than me. I'll never fly by private jet or be able to choose from a selection of castles and palaces for my weekend breaks, but as long as they not ripping me off, polluting my environment, exploiting people or denying me my own rights, I don't mind if others get to live that way.

Also, looking at he cost of running a civil service, getting rid of the Monarchy and replacing it some alternative Executive branch, could probably end up costing us a whole lot more...



[edit on 5/9/04 by muppet]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I would be more than happy to swap Government for Monarchy, no matter how dictatorish they were, on one condition:

If that Monarchy was fearsome, feared by others, powerful, strong, useful, and more importantly relevant and IN CHARGE, something our monarchy isn't, which makes it more Mockery than Monarchy.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
lol.. that's not quite what I'm suggesting!

I don't what the Monarch to be in charge of us. That's what democracy and elected government is for. The reason the Monarchy appear "weak" is because they play no part in everyday government.. which is as it should be.

I want the Monarch as an insurance; protection if you like, able to defend the integrity of that democratic system when all else fails. Literally, the Defender of the Realm.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet
Defender of the Realm.


now that's a cool job title



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Out with the monarchy, the royal family should be removed as head as state, its not fair having an unelected head of state for a so called "democracy"
Repulic would be the right move for our country.


im thinking of a phrase and it includes two words burn and hell

Id rather have Lizzy in the throne than that madman Blair and his communist buddies.

take yer New world order elsewhere.

i may not like the royal family but they represent something which seperates us from that desperate corrupt gulag called the EU.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
now that's a cool job title


oops I think I made mistake.. The actual title is Defender of the Faith, conferred on Henry XIII by Pope Leo X (who also had a pretty cool name himself!!). Ironically Henry XIII then put two fingers up a rome, set up the Church of England, and we spent the next few hundred years persecuting Catholics! oh hum!


Doubly ironically, I think I'm mixing it up with Lord Protector of the Realm, which was was actually Cromwell's title, and politically closer to a modern president!! oops! :doh:

Either way, it looks like Defender of the Realm is available so you can still apply..
CVs and covering letters to muppet.. c/o ATS, England.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet
Doubly ironically, I think I'm mixing it up with Lord Protector of the Realm, which was was actually Cromwell's title, and politically closer to a modern president!! oops! :doh:


Lord Protector of the Realm, i shall take that job until we get a president

Anyways, you wanna be president of the UK.....U2U me




top topics



 
0

log in

join