Royal birth

And of course they never abuse their powers... we better hope the brat doesn't take after its grandfather -

Senior advisers to Prince Charles appeared before the commons public accounts committee (PAC) last week to justify why the heir to the throne pays no corporation tax on the Duchy of Cornwall's multi-million pound profits.

The headlines say it all:

* 'Charles is paying a lower rate of tax than his servants': MPs blast 'shockingly wrong' deal on Duchy of Cornwall's £19million profits (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364231/Prince-Charles-paying-lower-rate-tax-servants.html)

* Prince Charles pays lower tax rate than his domestic servants, MPs claim (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-pays-lower-tax-2055838)

* Prince Charles 'dodging tax just like Starbucks' (http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/15/prince-charles-dodging-tax-just-like-starbucks-3884007/)

* Prince Charles accused of 'dodging around for tax purposes' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/15


Prince Charles has a moral obligation to pay tax, just as Google and Starbucks do.

But this isn't just about money or Prince Charles - the Duchy's tax affairs highlight the double standards and lack of accountability that come with hereditary power.

As long as we have a monarchy there will be corruption and abuse of privilege at the heart of our system of politics.


Source - Republic http://www.republic.org.uk/

 

No Offence Intended "Mr Frankenstein", But You Sir

Are A "Bloody Idiot"...



Cheers Glen.

 

And you are an Austrailian. The difference ?

 

Wasn't it ONE presenter that said that his report or at this time he didn't have anything really to report, and that 'the news' will come from elswhere (BP) rather than suggest the news of the new baby 'isn't news'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZKooDv1D8"]Royal Baby - BBC tells us the latest... - YouTube

The BBC (along with other media) seem to do the same thing: spend a couple of days saturating us, then moving on. It's almost textbook coverage, and almost text book complaints.

 

Hello and good day to all the babies that are born every day and aren't discussed because they aren't celebrities.

 

Sad to say this child will have no chance of anything resembling a normal life. No doubt they have already decided which army regiment it will join, following in the militaristic mould of daddy and grandaddy, uncles etc.
Even if he ever becomes king, which Id say is in the balance, he will have no power and have to be escorted everywhere by armed cops. Really, the royals are little more than manequins.

perhas he will rebel. That would be interesting.

 

Oh well always look on the bright size:

you will spend an evening without TV and you will go outside so you wount have to watch those two assholes

 

I Expected Better From You...



Cheers Glen.

 

Of what purpose would another inbred despot serve? What do any of them do anyway? People living off society ie. social services offer more to society than the so called "royals". LOL. What a joke!!!!!!

 

Inbred?

 

its all got a bit personal hasn't it?
still, good there's a lively thread going!

 

Cool, thanks - always interested in stuff like that.

True n true.

SO true.

I can understand it's one of those issues some people get really really emotionally het up about. It's one of those issues I get emotionally het up about (one of the very very few things I personally would get off my arse and fight for is the constitutional monarchy, partly because I'm so damn grateful it exists). But let's at least stay on reasonable terms.

I'll clearly disagree that Charles should be treated as a corporation for tax purposes. In my view any income his estate generates goes into the public pot anyway - the fact is, his family has access to that particular part of the public pot in order to pay for their constitutional and public activities. But he's not a private individual, I know youthink he should be but he isn't - tough. The royal family are exceptions to the general rules. There is good reason for their being treated differently, it's because they have a very special, very very important place in society. Remember, they don't and more importantly CAN'T abuse this fact otherwise everyone is suddenly a republican, including me.

Yes, the royal baby IS going to limited in life choices. It IS a guilded cage. It is part of the social contract we have with the Royal Family. They understand and accept it - in return for being used, literally, by our society as a political mechanism (the ultimate in reification, ironically) they have access to culture and wealth most people don't have access to. And a lot of that culture and wealth serves as a continual, continuous, eternal reminder to them that their first duty is to the people, to the nation.

No of course I'm not going to pay any attention to arguments or statistics from 'Republican' magazine. How about I post some guff from Royalasslickers.org and see if you take any notice? Partisan propaganda is pointless in a discussion like this.



And finally for today, it is all about the culture. Culture is difficult, complex, impossible, contradictory... powerful. Our state services have a culture of pledging allegiance to the Crown, which represents the beating heart, the soul of the nation. They don't pledge allegiance to the smarmiest bastard in Parliament. Thank god.

Our police, judiciary and military swear allegiance to the crown. I am FUCKING GRATEFUL that if I'm accused of a crime, I will stand trial in a Royal Court of Justice where a judge loyal to the Crown will ensure proper legal process, with evidence given by police officers who are technically and legally employees of the monarch. The system is not perfect, no system is. Mistakes aremade, and thankfully the vast majority of mistakes in the UK are publicised, highlighted, fought over. Even Abu fucking Qatadar gets a fair fucking trial.

No our system is not perfect, but it is MORE perfect than for example, the alternative presented by Russia. Where the President decides you are guilty of a crime you didn't commit, and the state services which are loyal to him are only there to ensure his will is done.

Even in the United States, their Supreme Court judges are divided along political lines. The President chooses them. SERIOUSLY WTF??!!

When, seriously when did you last hear of a British judge who was making judgements based on their affiliation with one political ideology or another?

So for these and many other reasons, but mostly for these...

GOD SAVE THE GOD DAMNED QUEEN!

 

Waiting for Emmerdale - Instead watching a door for the last 10-15 minutes.

 

Tell me about it. My one (cough) guilty pleasure and it got put off for the least 'news' news ever.

Almost enough to make me a republican.

 

You should enjoy Zimbabwe,then. It's a republic now-and the citizens are SO happy.

 

Uh - you're happy that the police, judiciary,MPs, armed forces all swear alligence to an unelected, unrepresentive old woman and her descendents, yea even unto the next three generations ?

Might have worked in the 12th century (because its basically a hangover of feudalism) but it looks a bit weird in the 21st.

Personally, I think all those professions should be declaring alligence to the citizens of the state, but of course we aren't citizens of a state, are we ? Good grief, we dont even have a written constitution ! How medieval is that ?

If you hear strange noises in the small hours, it'll be the ghost of Thomas Paine come to haunt you. Now there was a man with his head screwed on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1YipyJs2Q"]FRANKENSTEIN SOUND LAB - God Save The Queen - YouTube

 

*chuckle*

In the end I missed the entire photo opportunity. It's everywhere, though...
...and Emmerdale was on eventually



"We would like to thank the staff at the Lindo Wing and the whole hospital for the tremendous care the three of us have received. We know it has been a very busy period for the hospital and we would like to thank everyone -- staff, patients and visitors -- for their understanding during this time."

 

But here's what really happened - exclusive footage.

After months of waiting, Kate Middleton has finally done her royal duty and popped out a future monarch of Great Britain. The tiny tot was a disappointment even before being born, forcing an eager public to wait weeks past a due date which was never officially confirmed in the first place. Still, William and Kate couldn't be prouder of their new baby. Thanks to a 2011 succession law, the baby will perform perhaps the most vital role possible for a leader of Britain. That is, to keep Harry off the throne in the event that a multiple royal car pileup takes Charles and William out of line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y003byGFvw"]Royal baby born! Kate Middleton pops out a future monarch! - YouTube

 

Putting to one side your deliberate misrepresentation of the truth...

...yes. Didn't you read my previous posts?

12th century feudalism is as relevant to our constitutional monarchy as 12th century alchemy is to 21st century science.

Yes we are citizens of the state. The crown represents the state, society, our nations' histories and souls, our selves... it represents US.

It's incredibly, and beautifully modern. It's possibly even post-modern, as it acknowledges that written constitutions are too unworkably rigid and inflexible in this fast-paced, swiftly changing world of uncertain facts and contradictory truths.

The UNwritten constitution is one of Britain's greatest political assets. But it is also a living, breathing constitution embodied in the Monarch.

A man who saw with his own eyes the terrors that can be unleashed by ILL CONSIDERED republicanism, and was sickened by it.

I'm not suggesting our system is perfect, in fact no system is and no system ever will be - because society moves faster than the political structures can adapt. But I would definitely suggest that our system works better than what Paine would consider the greatest republican system, the one whose substructures and foundations he helped so much to build - the USA.

What makes our constitutional monarchy (clue's in the name - constitutional) one of the greatest, least imperfect political structures is that is has been developed over 1000 years, and continues to adapt itself today.

The problem is not with the constitution, nor the constitutional monarchy, nor the monarch herself...

...the problem is with the democracy, the politics and the politicians.

If it wasn't for our constitutional monarchy, those problems with politics and politicians would be so much worse.

The monarch is the only part of our system the selection of which Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the corporate owned media cannot influence. (Mangled sentence due to trying to avoid the arrant pedantry up with which Winston Churchill wouldn't put.)

Good song though. Love the Pistols.

But seriously, twisting the facts into cheap emotive soundbites kind of underlines what a shallow proposition your brand of republicanism is. You don't even have any credible criticisms to make (no offense intended).

Reactionary politics - worse than neoconservative corporatised capitalism. Even the evil neocons back themselves with solid-sounding arguments. (Note: solid-sounding!)

Huzzah for Queen Lizzy the 2nd!

 

But surely if its unwritten it doesn't exist. Extremely Kafkaesque territory, surely.

Or if you know better, please give a link to somewhere I can view it. Because I'd really like to know what my rights and responsibilities as a citizen are.


As an aside, do you think the "royal" family approve of the fact that an increasing number of "their" subjects are being plunged into poverty, homelessness and reliance on foodbanks to survive ? How do they stand under your unwritten constitution ?

No, of course the royals dont give a shit otherwise they might have spoken out. And dont give me that "it's all the politicians fault" - it is, but its condoned by the monarch, to whom all MPs will have had to swear alligence, and the Prime Minister, who has to report to the monarch regularly.

They're all part of the same esthablishment, all part of the same problem, all unlikely to care enough to change things - the royals, after all, are the ultra-conservatives.

No number of imaginary unwritten constitutions can make up for that.

This is my last word on the subject (in this thread, at least) unless you can provide me with a link to this unwritten constitution. If you cant, then we'll have assume that it's not only unwritten, its non-existant.