UN Human Rights Council tells the UK to get rid of their Queen.

IMHO we should take after the US and leave the UNHRC, it's a waste of money (more so than the queen I think) and a crock of #!

It's a sad state of affairs when fellow Brits are saying we should abolish the monarchy and get a constitution. It is also depressing that supposed learned individuals in the UNHRC seem to want us to do the same.

Are people that ignorant to realise we already have a constitution? Despite what Labour idiots like Jack Straw say, we DO have a constitution!

May I suggest some light reading for my British fellows (or even interested third parties)? Maybe you should read up on the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and English Common Law.

It's what the bulk of everyone else's constitutions is made up of, the USA being one major example! It is sad though that American lawyers know more about English Common law than the bloody English seem to be aware of. The Government propaganda works well, I see.

The only reason why other countries has a single document and ours is spread out is because we did it first. Everyone else has a single document as they had the advantage of being able to pool what was in various documents in English Common Law into one. Us English (British) have it spread across several documents and court rulings.

Personally, I think it is a shame the Queen doesn't exercise some of her power. I believe that in the UK we are in the same situation as Thailand was, with corrupt politicians working against the people's wishes.

She should do what their King did and have the Army remove the scum bags from parliament and overhaul the system so that we don't have a party in power with a 200 seat majority, even though only 27% of people voted for them and 25% voted for the Tories, passing Laws we don't want and taxing us to high heaven so that chavs don't have to work.

Step 1........destroy the UN. Arrest the crimminals, then public execution.

Step 2.......see step 1.

reply to post by stumason


Agreed.
I do not trust politicans who want to rewrite a constitution that is still legal and has never been repealed. Bill of Rights of 1689 (?) is still the fundamental part of the UK constitution and yet the government wants to rewrite it

Even though I am a proud republican, the UNHRC should not be supported due to their bias views of certain topics and certain Middle East Arab nations *coughs* pro-Arab nationalism *coughs*

Originally posted by paul76
They're spot on! I'd love for us to get rid of the Royal family. What do they do? They're just a load of rich elitist toffs who swan about living a life of luxury at the tax payers expense. It's high time we kicked them out and become a republic. I hate everything they stand for. Down with queen

Up with the republic

Were it not for the Queen we'd have had President Blair.

For that reason alone I hope we never, ever, get rid of the monarchy. Besides, they don't actually cost us that much and the prestige having the most famous monarchy and most famous woman on the planet is well worth the cost IMHO.

I'm not a monarchist by any means. But I'd rather a reluctant King or Queen than an egotistic maniac with very rich friends as President.

Down with the Republic, up with Democracy!



Edit: as for the UN - it's a bit like the Mafia advising us how to deal with law and order.... What a joke!

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Essan]

Sounds like the NWO lefty fascists are at it again.

reply to post by deltaboy


Hehe..

Excellent evidence that ANY Nation or Country that is a member of an absurd idea like the United Nations will be criticized and attacked!

To hell with the UN, Britain and the US should leave!

reply to post by Essan


Just to clear up the whole "they get loadsa money from us taxpayers" issue...

The Monarchy only costs somewhere in the region of £15-20Million a year. None of this is spent on personal things. It's all for the state dinners, travel, diplomatic shin digs etc that the Government asks the Queen to perform on behalf of the nation.

The rest of their income comes from assets they privately own and have done for centuries. They (voluntarily, I might add) pay income tax on anything they earn. So, in essence, people are bitching about them being rich just because they are rich.

If your family had assets that earned you money down the years, I bet you wouldn't be so quick to demonise them. But, being as most of us of a modest income, it stems from jealousy. Perhaps our ancestors should have had a few more balls and done something about it back then, if it bothers you so much?

Back in the days before the Norman conquest, the crown was basically up for grabs. Any man who could have got together enough men, 3000 would have done it as that was all Harold had as a standing army, then the crown would have been his.

Oh and for the person who said Norman colonisation was in the 1500's, that is quite, quite wrong. The 1500's were the Tudor period and any Norman heritage had been wiped out in favour of an emerging view of England as a Nation. Norman colonisation was in the 11th and 12th century and was only Nobles.

Even the Anglo-Saxon colonisation was mainly only Noblemen. As it stands today, 67% of the UK is of the same lineage that was here before the Romans came.

Again, it's sad that people are ignorant of our history.

[edit on 14/6/08 by stumason]

Oh my #ing lord.

I don't even know where to begin. I just am absolutely boggled by what they are claiming and the facts on the matter.

As an Englishman, I can 100% whole-heartedly say I support the monarchy. She is our queen, our figurehead, and our link to a thousand years of highly-impressive history. She is the monarch of sixteen independant states.

Our queen is a reminder of the glory days of our nation, when the name of this small island made people like Napoleon quake.

But not only that, we can be proud of the Queen. She has done nothing but seem stately and dignified in all public appearances in which I've seen her. She has done nothing but garnered my respect over the years for being such a stable figurehead. To remove her under the protestations of backwards foreign nations would be a disgrace.

Now, getting to the beef:

Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Cuba. Hmmm. Good list. I notice that Sri Lanka, Saudia Arabia and Cuba all have a section called "human rights" on the Wiki article, dealing with Human Rights violations in that country. That's interesting. The UK doesn't. I wonder why not? There is no smoke without a fire, after all.

Saudi Arabia: I'm sure in totalitarian Muslim countries like your absolute monarchy (oh, the irony!), a monarch is a scary proposition. When King Abdullah is the only man on earth who can save you for being burned alive for being a witch, a monarchy and the society that supports it is a terrifying prospect. Especially for the poor woman in question. I still don't know if he was benevolent enough to free her, but as I heard nothing more about it I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did.

In the UK, the monarch has no real power. She can't pass laws, make decrees or basically do anything. And I'm happy to pay the 62 pence a year it costs each British taxpayer. It's a trifling amount to have an eternal one-up on the yanks.

And on the same page as that link I find this: www.telegraph.co.uk.../global/2002/02/01/nsaud01.xml

Wow, what a surprise. "They are lying". Yes, I'm sure they'd love to ruin their lives by making false claims against another, and increasingly hostile, nation.

Sudan: you've screwed your country. Deal with it. Don't run away to our country and then complain when we aren't killing you like they did back home. My flatmate used to live with a Sudanese guy. He couldn't speak a word of English, not a damn word, until someone tried to remove him from the country, then he could dictate the entire bill of Human Rights.

Syria: If you have ever read the BBC website's Have Your Say section, you'll see that the British public is sick to the back teeth of the concessions we have made for bloody foreigners, especially Muslims. We have been far too liberal and limp-wristed over the issue. Give an inch, and they take a mile. It's always the way. The one I was most shocked about was banks offering "Muslim loans", upon which the loanee does not have to pay interest! I have to pay interest on my loans! In a shocking turn of events, the banks actually discriminate against the indigenous people of the country. Now shut the # up, Syria!

Iran: sexual discrimination. Is it April? Is there a new practical joke day I am not aware of? Or are you #ing mental? I think I know which one of these questions is true. What powers do women have under Islamic law, Islamic Republic of Iran? Not bloody much, since it requires two women to count as one man in Sharia court. Not very discriminating, that. Women do have half the brain of a man, naturally. It's more like 2/3rds, if you look at it scientifically, but thats jjust because of body size. It's not their fault, and if Iranian women were allowed to read and write, you'd be able to test them to see that it doesn't make a difference to IQ. If anything, women actually achieve higher marks.

Cuba: Call yourself a socialist state all you want, we'll forever call you communists. We don't listen to the likes of you, full stop. Get lost and go mourn over your dead dictator. Your only saving grace is you are an atheist state too. Why not invite some Muslim immigrants over? We can't seem to keep them out of our countries.

Sorry for the rant, but these backward theocratic dictorial idiots are in no way fit for 21st century society, and should be exiled from it until they are.

reply to post by stumason


You are 100% bang on the money. Well done, your knowledge is commendable, and I completely support your opinion on the matter.

By the way, did anyone get any idea of what the British representative at this meeting say to all of this, or was he just stunned into a shocked silence?

Originally posted by stumason


Even the Anglo-Saxon colonisation was mainly only Noblemen. As it stands today, 67% of the UK is of the same lineage that was here before the Romans came.


[edit on 14/6/08 by stumason]

In broad agreement with everything you've said so far Stumason but with regards the above comment it's a highly contentious issue amongst historians and arcgeologists etc. Nobody's really sure with regards to the invasion/intergration issue and there's no conclusive proof. Although, like you, I tend to suspect there's a significant amount of genetic continuity in the British population.

With regards to the original topic, it would make a great comedy sketch.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Cantwara]

reply to post by Cantwara


Indeed. I was quoting a genetic study I read about on the BBC, but I suppose studies only go so far in telling a story and it depends on whether the originally theory/methodology was correct in the first place.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Essan

 

The rest of their income comes from assets they privately own and have done for centuries. They (voluntarily, I might add) pay income tax on anything they earn. So, in essence, people are bitching about them being rich just because they are rich.

Oh really? I'm afraid i don't care about them being rich, if they were just a rich private citizen i wouldn't give a flying monkey. It's the idea of a monarchy that a dislike, the idea that they're above normal people, better than etc. Should they get any tax payer money? No i think not, maybe the service to their country should be all the reward they need.

Originally posted by stumason
If your family had assets that earned you money down the years, I bet you wouldn't be so quick to demonise them. But, being as most of us of a modest income, it stems from jealousy. Perhaps our ancestors should have had a few more balls and done something about it back then, if it bothers you so much?

Doesn't bother me they're rich, i don't hate Bill Gates and he's very wealthy. Well ok i do dislike Bill Gates but only because windows is a disaster, but that's from my perspective as an IT person My dislike of the monarchy has nothing to do with the money.

Originally posted by stumason
Back in the days before the Norman conquest, the crown was basically up for grabs. Any man who could have got together enough men, 3000 would have done it as that was all Harold had as a standing army, then the crown would have been his.

Well this is quite true, however i don't find it relevant to today.

Originally posted by stumason
Again, it's sad that people are ignorant of our history.

I read a lot of history, i am also fully aware of the legal documents you bought forward that form the basis of our laws. However i actually like the idea of reforming it, putting it into one document and have the people of a modern age vote on each section. That way we end up with a shiny example of democracy and a single document that everyone can carry around like the "pocket constitution" of the USA.

Our laws are spread about and whilst the solicitors, police and judges understand them. The common person usually doesn't, wouldn't making it into a constitution in the same vain as the USA make it nice and simple, clear to everyone so that they could mor accurately argue their rights when needed?

So that's my position, abolish the monarchy, turn us into a republic and solidify our existing laws into a single constitution stating the basic rights and freedoms of the people.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Oh really? I'm afraid i don't care about them being rich, if they were just a rich private citizen i wouldn't give a flying monkey. It's the idea of a monarchy that a dislike, the idea that they're above normal people, better than etc. Should they get any tax payer money? No i think not, maybe the service to their country should be all the reward they need.

If you actually speak to any of the Royals, then they do not think they are above anyone. In fact, Charles has gone to great pains to make his sons realise that they serve the people, not rule over them. Same with the Queen. During WW2, she refused (along with her father) to leave London and joined the WRVS. She spent the war fixing vehicles for the Army.

And who is to pay for them performing said service to their country? If it were you or I or anyone else, we would expect an expenses account. That is basically what the Civil List is. Those performing functions of state receive payment and have their expenses paid.

The Royal family is by far a lot cheaper to run than Parliament with MP's claiming for second homes and new kitchens.......

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Doesn't bother me they're rich, i don't hate Bill Gates and he's very wealthy. Well ok i do dislike Bill Gates but only because windows is a disaster, but that's from my perspective as an IT person

My dislike of the monarchy has nothing to do with the money.

Then what is it to do with?

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well this is quite true, however i don't find it relevant to today.

You took the quote out of context, which is probably why you didn't find it relevant. It was actually following on from my comment about our ancestors.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I read a lot of history, i am also fully aware of the legal documents you bought forward that form the basis of our laws. However i actually like the idea of reforming it, putting it into one document and have the people of a modern age vote on each section. That way we end up with a shiny example of democracy and a single document that everyone can carry around like the "pocket constitution" of the USA.

Ewww... You want us to copy the USA, who copied us? What is it with thinking the USA has got it so much better than us?

The Bill of Rights is a piece of piss to understand. The only thing you need concern yourself with is the basic rights declarations. The Pre-amble and the bit about the succession are only relevant to the Royals in the 17th and 18th century.

If anyone bothered to look it up, it would be easy to understand. Here it is nicely summarised for people to read. If you want to read the original text, here it be.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Our laws are spread about and whilst the solicitors, police and judges understand them. The common person usually doesn't, wouldn't making it into a constitution in the same vain as the USA make it nice and simple, clear to everyone so that they could mor accurately argue their rights when needed?

As stated above, it is actually really easy to understand but people are ignorant or lazy. The Police barely understand Common law at all, they are just concerned with criminal Law, which is different. Common Law supersedes Criminal Law. You don't even understand the difference, apparently.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So that's my position, abolish the monarchy, turn us into a republic and solidify our existing laws into a single constitution stating the basic rights and freedoms of the people.

There is no need. All of the rights set out in Common Law are already clearly laid out. The US Constitution is still being debated today due to it's ambiguous nature over what was meant (right to bear arms, anyone?), so what makes you think it's easier they're way? You don't interpret Common Law, it just is and is quite clear.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

I read a lot of history, i am also fully aware of the legal documents you bought forward that form the basis of our laws. However i actually like the idea of reforming it, putting it into one document and have the people of a modern age vote on each section. That way we end up with a shiny example of democracy and a single document that everyone can carry around like the "pocket constitution" of the USA.

Our laws are spread about and whilst the solicitors, police and judges understand them. The common person usually doesn't, wouldn't making it into a constitution in the same vain as the USA make it nice and simple, clear to everyone so that they could mor accurately argue their rights when needed?

So that's my position, abolish the monarchy, turn us into a republic and solidify our existing laws into a single constitution stating the basic rights and freedoms of the people.

We may as well be a republic for all the monarchy has to do with the running of this country - don't you see that?

Remember they are a significant source of tourist revenue. Mainly Americans who have to enviously see what we have that they don't.

There is no way i'd want to copy the American method of government.

Originally posted by Ste2652
Aww, that's nice. We're quite capable of deciding whether we want a Queen or a President ourselves, thank you. It's worked pretty well for the last thousand years.

What a waste of time. Why doesn't this council start focusing on real human rights issues... Zimbabwe anyone?

According to the video, Iran complained about the UK's poor efforts to tackle sexual discrimination. Says the nation where women aren't allowed to hold public office and where homosexuals are hanged.

The UK should follow the US's lead and leave the Human Rights Council. Clearly it has descended into an utter farce.

[edit on 13/6/08 by Ste2652]

I agree the UK should follow the US in that move since the rights council is dominated by the biggest abusers of human rights.Sudan anyone?Ive notified local black leaders of the issue of Radical Islams discrimination against blacks in Darfur who arent Muslim.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
By the way, did anyone get any idea of what the British representative at this meeting say to all of this, or was he just stunned into a shocked silence?

Personally, I'd have just laughed as I walked to the door - why bother dignifying the report with an official response? It smacks of hypocrisy.

As for the stuff about the Monarchy; well, I agree it's interesting but if you want to debate Monarch vs. Republic then start a thread on it in the political forums and I'll happily jump in. This thread is about the UN report.