That's a very dumb point of view.
Dithering rich prat in a 4x4 causes car crash and almost kills a baby
- Thread starter Mr Pigeon
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
look it doesn't matter if the person next door is coming at you with a machete, just focus on being, like, the best you and you'll overcome
Well we could always follow your point of view and start a campaign to raise taxes and force the top 26 to just give away their money. Let me know how that works out.
No let's just sit here and do yoga. Why try to change anything ever?
Whatever floats your boat mate.
I respectfully disagree with this. From this post I get a very insular point of view. Why should we concentrate solely on our own problems, and work to make only our own life better. One could be perfectly content with their own life financially but still recognise how unbalanced the wealth distribution is and work against that. You say that it’s improbable one generation could change society’s structure, but that’s not a reason to not bother, just because I might not personally profit doesn’t mean that my efforts won’t go towards making things better for future generations.
The idea that 26 people can own as much wealth as 50% of the global population is horrifying imo. I think people should strive to change that.
It is an insular point of view. But why is it bad? I mean why is looking inward and putting the blame of my troubles on my shoulders bad? I find it is better to do that as you're more likely to find a solution if you concentrate on what you can do to make things better.
I get the point you are making about inequitable distribution of money but I'm sorry I don't believe the solution to that is to take a negative view of the rich and try to make them pay for being rich.
What’s worse is people who argue the fact it brings in billions through tourism. There is literally no way to calculate how much is generated from tourism specifically regarding the Royal Family.
It’s the fact the likes of Princess Eugenie has a lavish wedding, all celebrities invited, no expense spared. This wouldn’t have been paid out of the family pot. This country is paying for that, for what exactly? She is probably 10th in line for the thrown and done nothing her entire life but live of tax payers money. It’s ridiculous.
Because the blame would be misdirected. You have people working flat out solely to survive and your view is that they should blame themselves for their predicament, why? You said earlier that people shouldn’t bother trying to change societal structure, when it’s an inherently flawed system.
I don’t think saying that 26 individuals shouldn’t have more wealth than 50% of the entire global population is me taking a negative view of the rich, it’s just common sense. Do you think that disparity is right? People absolutely should change society’s structure when it leads to such staggering wealth disparity. I’m enjoying this but I think we’re in the wrong thread, we should probably stick to the wealth distribution one
So... How about that accident, eh folks?
He was DAZZLED by the sun.
Queens husband. Can do what he wants. Why is the public so outraged? Deal with it.
1.
The richest 10% (~700 million) contribute to 50% of emissions, as much as the ~ 6.3 billion people. So i population the main issue, or lifestyle?
2. The rural poor in India historically have had more kids because their kids die and their kids work on farms, so they need the labour. They have more kids because of poverty.
Also the Indian fertility rate is now 2.2 (replacement rate is 2.1). Further, historically, the state with the lowest fertility is Kerala which has never been the richest state, but had the highest literacy rate and better healthcare than most other states.
So your poverty-fertility correlation needs a little more work.
3. The rich have power over society, by virtue of being rich they can influence politicians, etc. There are studies showing how laws that are passed reflect the desires of the rich rather than the population as a whole.
The "they" is the superstructure of the state, the media, both of which are directly or indirectly owned by the rich and so often reflect their interests.
I'll reply to you and @Cascarino in the thread he mentioned, but don't have time right now, probably tomorrow.1.
1.
The richest 10% (~700 million) contribute to 50% of emissions, as much as the ~ 6.3 billion people. So i population the main issue, or lifestyle?
2. The rural poor in India historically have had more kids because their kids die and their kids work on farms, so they need the labour. They have more kids because of poverty.
Also the Indian fertility rate is now 2.2 (replacement rate is 2.1). Further, historically, the state with the lowest fertility is Kerala which has never been the richest state, but had the highest literacy rate and better healthcare than most other states.
So your poverty-fertility correlation needs a little more work.
3. The rich have power over society, by virtue of being rich they can influence politicians, etc. There are studies showing how laws that are passed reflect the desires of the rich rather than the population as a whole.
The "they" is the superstructure of the state, the media, both of which are directly or indirectly owned by the rich and so often reflect their interests.
Nostalgia for our colonial past that allows people to pretend that we are far more important and influential than we are is a huge part of many leave voters motivations. I have friends who think this way and it isn't rare. They are always Tory monarchists btw. So blame specifically as a direct and only cause? No. A contribution to the mindset that allowed such silliness to happen? Yes.
Who then voted to leave the EU.
You brought up Brexit. So in the context of that conversation these things would be anything the Royals influence directly or indirectly.
Land of Hope and Glory or White Cliffs of Dover or whatever nationalistic song you feel appropriate. Anything as long as you can sing it loudly without thinking.
Last edited:
All of the people I know who voted leave love the Monarchy, are suspicious of Europeans and seem to think leaving the EU will be a roaring success as we did just fine previously when we had an empire. Drunken mentions of winning WW2 single handed are also not unknown. You hear it all the time on talk back radio although people tend to say Commonwealth rather than cite colonialism directly.
The thing is, there are millions of people who dont have a snowballs chance in hell to take care of their own issues, because their parents cant provide them with food, housing or clothes while we are busy taking care of the issue of deciding which smartphone to buy.
Anecdotal evidence and generalisation. Time to change your friends perhaps? Find some that voted for Brexit for fear of their community.
Yes. But they're not the monarchy, who you blame (partly or largely) for Brexit, are they? For all we know Liz and the gang are pro EU. Don't bother with conjecture, gossip, conspiracy theory or more anecdotal evidence here a la The Dismissal. The Queen does not take political side.
Oh dear. White Cliffs of Dover is a song composed and set to lyrics by Americans (clue here...Bluebirds) that sings of the hope for peace at the height of the air war over Britain in WW2. A harmless ditty from an existential war that was meant to ease the worries of airmen and a public in fear of their lives is a nationalist song sung without thinking?
You've got a bit if a scattergun approach to UK nationalism Wibble. An oddly binary and caricatured view of "Tory monarchists" based on some people that you know. How long have you been away?
That's uber weird, but hey opinions and people! Winning WW2 single handedly, wow!
Winning the World Cup in 1966 also often gets a mention. It isn't very coherent but many Brits have a weird view of our place in the world. The delusion and arrogance with which we have conducted Brexit negotiations speaks to this.
If we were only friends with people who agreed us life would be very boring. As a rather smart poster on here used to say "Reasonable minds may differ".
I am not talking about the Queen's personal view. I'm talking about the whole being ruled by elites be that Monarchy or appointed hereditary peers or even voting in posh buffoons like Boris and seemingly loving it. Brits are weird like that.
Away? I'm talking about conversations I've had in person, in Manchester, since we voted to leave.
Yes. I was critiquing the songs origins and lyrics
It is now synonymous with a time when Britain was great and we gave the hun a damn good pasting.
And the Royals feed into the weird and delusional view that many leavers have of our place in the world rather than being directly responsible. Many things influence individuals' and groups' mindsets and it doesn't have to be one thing or another. A feeling of disenfranchisement for some, self interest for some, racism for others and lots of other things like "taking back control". A nostalgia for the past feeds into some of these things.
Last edited:
'66 WC
If you look at it, colonialism has lots in common with unified Europe as you have variety of nations following a single lead. It's not as autocractic and Britain is not in driving seat ofcourse, but fundamentally both have not been "Britain" alone.
Can't win, don't try. Got it.
The principles that got women the vote, abolished slavery and introduced a social safety net.
Oh wait ......
'66 WC
If you look at it, colonialism has lots in common with unified Europe as you have variety of nations following a single lead. It's not as autocractic and Britain is not in driving seat ofcourse, but fundamentally both have not been "Britain" alone.
I can't hear you as I'm singing Land of Hope and Glory so loudly
Is this a serious post? You think the brexit and trump threads are full of conservative posters?
How is anybody supposed to take discussion on this forum seriously if you really believe that? It’s beyond laughable.
Who said full? The vast majority of poster are centre of the middle. A few further left and a few further right.
And then you have Eboue and Silva.
Prince Philip is a very old man who most likely won't be with us for more than the next five years. You can't really look at anything he does and make assumptions about anything else pertaining to the Royals. He's of the past, with values that reflect those of his generation and aristocratic background.
I have fairly neutral views about the Royal family but I think the Queen has done the job of being Queen very well, for a very long time. Whether or not we should actually have someone doing that job is a much bigger issue.
I have fairly neutral views about the Royal family but I think the Queen has done the job of being Queen very well, for a very long time. Whether or not we should actually have someone doing that job is a much bigger issue.
See, I don't quite understand how to interpret her work. What does she exactly do so well that it's praiseworthy? She has probably dozens of consultants and advisors telling her how to behave and speak in public, and they likely accompany her at international trips.
There are certain formal and ceremonial duties attached to the role of monarch. She also has been patron of a large number of charitable organisations.
I doubt if she needs any advisers at all, quite honestly - she's been doing the job without incident or embarrassment for well over 66 years. She was the daughter of a king, it's all she's ever known. She knows exactly how to behave and speak in public!
Edit - she actually does even more than I thought she did - just have a read of this.
https://www.thecrownchronicles.co.u...a-day-in-the-life-of-the-queen-daily-routine/
She must eat quite a lot.
But because of the undemocratic succession principle that goes with the crown, we'll never know if there's someone else out there who could do a better job. My views on the Royal family are a far way off neutral. I don't believe people should be born to be automatically subservient to another group of people. It's wrong on so many levels. They have it written in the constitution that the military & police force put them before anyone else. So if London came under a massive terrorist attack, the safety of the 2 old fogies that are Liz & Phil would be put before the real vulnerable people out there on the streets. How people can have any affection for Royalty just staggers me.
Completely agree.
Well, I think the people who have real affection for them nowadays probably see them as representing something that's gone, or possibly never really existed. The Queen is a one-off, really. Many of the others in the Royal family seem to fill pointless roles and live lives of luxury for no meaningful contribution.
We all know nowadays that they have feet of clay. In years past, the public never heard anything negative about them, of course.
Today's population as a whole tends to overwhelmingly lean left though if I'm not misremembering statistics - unfortunately that isn't reflected in voting patterns as the younger generation don't get out to vote, so it's no surprise that online forums reflect that. If people leaning right are salty about being a minority then they should change some of their principles so that more people in the population identify with them. Or get your great grandparents to sign up to the Caf.
Given up his license apparently.
He'll still be able to drive off-road around the many Royal estates, so hopefully that brand-new Land Rover won't go to waste!
Woop de fecking doooo. He shouldn't be allowed to have it at his age anyway and definitely not after the crash and certainly not after being caught without a seatbelt a week later.
I don't care who he is, there should be a cut off age for driving. Everyone gets a free bus pass at retirement age anyway so it would also help with congestion and help the environment too.
Driving at 97 is barmy. Ridiculous that the law allows it.