|
||||||||
Queen Unwell |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#676 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,888
|
Quote:
If it carries on unless George passes it Charlotte or something else happens there won't be another Queen as Head Of State for over 100 Years
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#677 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
I think you're wandering wildly off the point here and I really have no idea where you're going with any of this.
All I asked was for a straightforward answer to two points raised by another poster. I haven't had a satisfactory answer to either of them, which is why I asked for clarification on what was meant by these purported examples of the Queen's "piss poor" behaviour. I haven't actually expressed a personal opinion on the Queen or the Royal Family one way or another so I don't know why you're rambling on about the Kardashians all of a sudden. What on earth do any of them have to do with this topic? ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#678 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
Of course you've had a satisfactory answer, just refused to accept it. Not paying tax and being extremely casual either with an innocent man's liberty or the truth is pretty piss poor and, as per my point, more people would be highly critical if Bet Windsor wasn't queen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#679 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
I'm not sure that paying tax voluntarily that isn't legally due qualifies as piss poor behaviour.
She didn't pay any tax for decades. Then the mood of the country changed enough for her to agree to pay some tax. No one knows if it's all or most of what should be paid or just some token gesture to allow her to say that she does 'pay tax'. We heavily criticise those who use every legal loophole to minimize their tax bill. Gary Barlow, from memory, was one of the people who have relatively recently been accused of aggressive tax avoidance - there were calls for the queen to strip him of his OBE (or whatever it was he'd been given). He ended up apologising and reassuring the public that he was getting new accountants. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Do you think aggressively exploiting her privileged position to the extent where she is above the law, for financial gain, is an example of good behaviour? It's also worth remembering that while royalists tell us how dutiful and devoted she is to this country, there are thousands of people in her age group, pensioners, who have spent a lifetime paying every last bit of tax the revenue could squeeze out of them, who are now having to choose between heating and food. Thousands die because they can't afford both. So yes, in my opinion, one of the richest women on the planet getting herself a deal to deprive the treasury of millions (some estimate over a billion by now) is pretty piss poor. She got the deal because she's queen and some people defend it because she's queen, but once the royal aspect of it is stripped away, what's left is pretty grim. |
|
|
|
|
|
#680 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
I'm not sure that paying tax voluntarily that isn't legally due qualifies as piss poor behaviour.
Or indeed the best example to her subjects. Piss poor is not a term I would use; 'bad show' is appropriate however IMO. Last edited by Richard46 : 05-01-2017 at 07:46. Reason: accuracy |
|
|
|
|
|
#681 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
Of course you've had a satisfactory answer, just refused to accept it. Not paying tax and being extremely casual either with an innocent man's liberty or the truth is pretty piss poor and, as per my point, more people would be highly critical if Bet Windsor wasn't queen.
You refer to her "piss poor behaviour" regarding the Burrell case but you have not actually stated what your criticism of her is. Why can't you just say categorically what it is that you're accusing her of, instead of refering to it coyly as "piss poor behaviour" and then pretending you've actually stated what it was? Unless you make it clear what you think she has done wrong and why, how can anyone be sure what your specific point is? |
|
|
|
|
|
#682 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
Blueblade, you just posted nobody was saying there was no need for a democratic choice.
Quote:
Yet you seem to be defending the status quo of the next three heads of state after Elizabeth II, already being chosen by hereditary succession ?
Simply because there has been no collective call for their abolition, and also because opinion polls have showed consistent solid support for their continuation. I would agree that if public disquiet over the continuation of the Royal Family reached anything like critical mass, then yes, a referendum would be the correct way forward. Currently though, as the poll in this thread, posted yesterday in the politics forum shows, there is a 2:1 majority for those in favour of their continuance. That reflects national opinion on the issue. What's your personal view? |
|
|
|
|
|
#683 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
As I said before, she does pay tax.
Do you think it's good behaviour for a head of state to negotiate for themselves, using their position, to be above the law, for massive personal financial gain? Quote:
You refer to her "piss poor behaviour" regarding the Burrell case but you have not actually stated what your criticism of her is. I assume that most people are aware of what happened. The court case was reported on extensively. It should be pretty obvious that I can't be suggesting that Bet lied (as you asked) because how on earth would I know. However I can and did say, clearly and with no 'coyly' about it, that her behaviour, going on all the facts that were reported, was very poor indeed. Piss poor, one could say. Crap. Very bad. Disgraceful. Etc. Anyone else behaving like that would have been widely criticised.Why can't you just say categorically what it is that you're accusing her of, instead of refering to it coyly as "piss poor behaviour" and then pretending you've actually stated what it was Unless you make it clear what you think she has done wrong and why, how can anyone be sure what your specific point is? If you spent that particular year out of the country, in a coma or on some kind of a news blackout, the overview is this. Some time after Di's death, Paul Burrell was accused of stealing items from her home. He insisted that Bet Windsor had given him her permission to take the items away for safekeeping. She said nothing and a very prominent court case began. As it continued, and as things started to look not so great for Burrell, it emerged that once on the stand he was going to be very frank about what he knew about the royal family. At that point Bet suddenly, and after weeks and weeks of amnesia, remembered giving her permission and that was that. So my incredibly obvious criticism of her behaviour is that she was either not bothered enough about dragging an innocent man through the courts to have a good think about probably the only proper conversation she had had with him, or she stepped in and lied to stop her family's dirty laundry being washed in public, and maybe even freed a guilty man by doing so. I don't know which, so I'm not suggesting she lied, but either way, crappy. Etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#684 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 242
|
Quote:
That was in response to Richard's somewhat odd remark, which stemmed directly from what I said about not abolishing the monarchy until there had been a referendum on the issue.
Simply because there has been no collective call for their abolition, and also because opinion polls have showed consistent solid support for their continuation. I would agree that if public disquiet over the continuation of the Royal Family reached anything like critical mass, then yes, a referendum would be the correct way forward. Currently though, as the poll in this thread, posted yesterday in the politics forum shows, there is a 2:1 majority for those in favour of their continuance. That reflects national opinion on the issue. What's your personal view? ![]() Seriously though I can only speak for myself and those I know in real life. 20 years ago I would have said if we went to referendum she would not be going anywhere but this last few years I would say she would be gone if it went to a referendum, Not only have my own views on her changed but so have the views of most people I know . I used to repeat the same old stuff that people here are repeating but the truth of it is, is they were gone tourism would not change one bit . When I look to see how the poor, homeless and disabled are treated and see her doing and saying nothing about it it angers me greatly and please do not tell me she is not allowed to do or say anything as we all know she and the rest do when it suits them to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#685 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
Are these the same polls that said that we would be staying in the EU, that the people disliked Corbyn and that Clinton would win the elections?
![]() Interestingly, that 2:1 in favour, is reversed in Scotland, where it's 2:1 against. Ironic, given that most of the loyalists in Northern Ireland, are descended from lowland Scots. Still, the Scots had their chance at independence, which would by default mean no more Queen for them, and bottled it. Quote:
Seriously though I can only speak for myself and those I know in real life. 20 years ago I would have said if we went to referendum she would not be going anywhere but this last few years I would say she would be gone if it went to a referendum, Not only have my own views on her changed but so have the views of most people I know . Do you think things would be any better for the poor, homeless and disabled if the Royal Family were abolished?
I used to repeat the same old stuff that people here are repeating but the truth of it is, is they were gone tourism would not change one bit . When I look to see how the poor, homeless and disabled are treated and see her doing and saying nothing about it it angers me greatly and please do not tell me she is not allowed to do or say anything as we all know she and the rest do when it suits them to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#686 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 954
|
Quote:
She didn't for decades and only agreed to pay some (and we don't know whether what she pays is in any way even close to what her tax bill should be) because attention was brought to it and it was expedient for her to agree to something.
Do you think it's good behaviour for a head of state to negotiate for themselves, using their position, to be above the law, for massive personal financial gain? I assume that most people are aware of what happened. The court case was reported on extensively. It should be pretty obvious that I can't be suggesting that Bet lied (as you asked) because how on earth would I know. However I can and did say, clearly and with no 'coyly' about it, that her behaviour, going on all the facts that were reported, was very poor indeed. Piss poor, one could say. Crap. Very bad. Disgraceful. Etc. Anyone else behaving like that would have been widely criticised. If you spent that particular year out of the country, in a coma or on some kind of a news blackout, the overview is this. Some time after Di's death, Paul Burrell was accused of stealing items from her home. He insisted that Bet Windsor had given him her permission to take the items away for safekeeping. She said nothing and a very prominent court case began. As it continued, and as things started to look not so great for Burrell, it emerged that once on the stand he was going to be very frank about what he knew about the royal family. At that point Bet suddenly, and after weeks and weeks of amnesia, remembered giving her permission and that was that. So my incredibly obvious criticism of her behaviour is that she was either not bothered enough about dragging an innocent man through the courts to have a good think about probably the only proper conversation she had had with him, or she stepped in and lied to stop her family's dirty laundry being washed in public, and maybe even freed a guilty man by doing so. I don't know which, so I'm not suggesting she lied, but either way, crappy. Etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#687 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
Still, the Scots had their chance at independence, which would by default mean no more Queen for them, and bottled it.
The Union of the Crowns predates the Act of Union by over a hundred years. So "by default", The Queen would have remained Head of State in an independent Scotland. |
|
|
|
|
|
#688 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
|
Quote:
Where do you get that idea from?
The Union of the Crowns predates the Act of Union by over a hundred years. So "by default", The Queen would have remained Head of State in an independent Scotland. |
|
|
|
|
|
#689 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
Where do you get that idea from?
The Union of the Crowns predates the Act of Union by over a hundred years. So "by default", The Queen would have remained Head of State in an independent Scotland. Interestingly enough, just looking at another link it would appear that support for the Royal Family is higher than what I thought, not only amongst the Scots, but over the UK as a whole, where it stands at 77% compared to 17% against. Quote:
Members of the Radical Independence movement - a coalition of activists on the left - would also like to enable Scotland to become a republic if it wants to do so. Something else for the minority anti Royalists to consider.
Earlier this month, a YouGov poll suggested 54% of Scots favour keeping the monarchy if Scotland votes "Yes", compared with 39% who would like to see it scrapped. Among SNP voters this narrows to 46% compared with 39%, though the survey had a smaller sample size. Although these figures indicate the monarchy still has more fans than it does detractors, in the UK as a whole support is higher, at 77%, and opposition is lower, at 17%, according to Ipsos MORI's latest survey. Even if Mr Salmond gets his preference and the Queen remains head of state in an independent Scotland, her role would be likely to change, according to director of UCL's Constitution Unit, Professor Robert Hazell. He says the Queen's duties would "depend on the role provided for head of state in Scotland's new written constitution". The Scottish government has specified that under independence, the people of Scotland would be sovereign, whereas at present sovereignty rests with the Crown in Parliament. |
|
|
|
|
|
#690 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
This would appear to be your opinion of what actually happened, not what was reported at that time.
The only thing that can be suggested in her support is that she genuinely forgot and even a prominent court case didn't jog her memory until just after Burrell said what he said. But that's stretching credibility past breaking point, in my opinion (< yes, that bit is my opinion). |
|
|
|
|
|
#691 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
She didn't for decades and only agreed to pay some (and we don't know whether what she pays is in any way even close to what her tax bill should be) because attention was brought to it and it was expedient for her to agree to something.
Do you think it's good behaviour for a head of state to negotiate for themselves, using their position, to be above the law, for massive personal financial gain? I assume that most people are aware of what happened. The court case was reported on extensively. It should be pretty obvious that I can't be suggesting that Bet lied (as you asked) because how on earth would I know. However I can and did say, clearly and with no 'coyly' about it, that her behaviour, going on all the facts that were reported, was very poor indeed. Piss poor, one could say. Crap. Very bad. Disgraceful. Etc. Anyone else behaving like that would have been widely criticised. If you spent that particular year out of the country, in a coma or on some kind of a news blackout, the overview is this. Some time after Di's death, Paul Burrell was accused of stealing items from her home. He insisted that Bet Windsor had given him her permission to take the items away for safekeeping. She said nothing and a very prominent court case began. As it continued, and as things started to look not so great for Burrell, it emerged that once on the stand he was going to be very frank about what he knew about the royal family. At that point Bet suddenly, and after weeks and weeks of amnesia, remembered giving her permission and that was that. So my incredibly obvious criticism of her behaviour is that she was either not bothered enough about dragging an innocent man through the courts to have a good think about probably the only proper conversation she had had with him, or she stepped in and lied to stop her family's dirty laundry being washed in public, and maybe even freed a guilty man by doing so. I don't know which, so I'm not suggesting she lied, but either way, crappy. Etc. Since 2012, the arrangements put in place for the funding of the Monarchy are intended to be ongoing and reviewed every few years, rather than being reign-specific as previously. Your comments which you have finally shared about the Burrell case, are apparently largely your opinion, to which you are of course entitled... but they don't indicate anything much other than an understandable wish not to become embroiled in or otherwise compromise the process that dispenses justice in her name as monarch. |
|
|
|
|
|
#692 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 242
|
Quote:
Whilst it's true to say that some recent opinion polls have been way wide of the mark, we should also remember that opinion polls on the Royal Family have shown the same level of response for many years.
Interestingly, that 2:1 in favour, is reversed in Scotland, where it's 2:1 against. Ironic, given that most of the loyalists in Northern Ireland, are descended from lowland Scots. Still, the Scots had their chance at independence, which would by default mean no more Queen for them, and bottled it. Do you think things would be any better for the poor, homeless and disabled if the Royal Family were abolished? I don't give a hoot for the so called polls I live in the world where I have see real opinions changing rather than people ticking a box. I see 100s polls on Corbyn being unelectable while at the same time 1000s on marches and groups protesting about losing the right to vote. Even though they had to pay £25 they still did it, and also paid towards shopping for others to be able to have the right to vote for the person they wanted to be a leader Now I would not trust any official poll as all the ones I see elsewhere told a very different story |
|
|
|
|
|
#693 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,109
|
Quote:
She didn't pay any tax for decades. Then the mood of the country changed enough for her to agree to pay some tax. No one knows if it's all or most of what should be paid or just some token gesture to allow her to say that she does 'pay tax'.
Surely it would make more sense to just give her less (or no) tax payers money in the first place rather than giving her a load with one hand and then taking some of it back with the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#694 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
All monarchs since George III (I think) have had individually negotiated financial arrangements in line with the ways in which the funding of the monarchy has undergone numerous changes over the decades and centuries since then. The Monarch paying taxes has only been a voluntary arrangement and the specifics have changed each time the Crown passed to the next monarch. So, whilst you may choose to accuse the Queen of tax dodging, this would be wrong as she could not have "dodged" something she was not required to do. The choice to pay taxes on her private income from 1993 was a voluntary one. It seems you would prefer to ignore her choice to pay voluntarily and instead accuse her of dodging a non-existent arrangement.
Since 2012, the arrangements put in place for the funding of the Monarchy are intended to be ongoing and reviewed every few years, rather than being reign-specific as previously. Quote:
Your comments which you have finally shared about the Burrell case, are apparently largely your opinion, to which you are of course entitled... but they don't indicate anything much other than an understandable wish not to become embroiled in or otherwise compromise the process that dispenses justice in her name as monarch.
I eventually described the main facts surrounding the case because you seemed to be unaware of them. As to the last bit - again, it just proves my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
#695 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the logic of the Queen paying tax tbh. Because doesn't she receive a load of income from the treasury?
Surely it would make more sense to just give her less (or no) tax payers money in the first place rather than giving her a load with one hand and then taking some of it back with the other? ![]() The profits from the Crown Estates - paid to the Treasury - come from the Monarch and in return, the Monarch gets the Sovereign Grant to meet the costs of the Monarchy. None of it is hers personally. It belongs to " the crown". She pays tax on her private income. |
|
|
|
|
|
#696 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
So do you think it's good behaviour for the queen to use her position to put herself above the law, in order to make very significant, personal financial gains?
I eventually described the main facts surrounding the case because you seemed to be unaware of them. As to the last bit - again, it just proves my point. You haven't proved anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
#697 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the logic of the Queen paying tax tbh. Because doesn't she receive a load of income from the treasury?
Surely it would make more sense to just give her less (or no) tax payers money in the first place rather than giving her a load with one hand and then taking some of it back with the other? ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#698 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
She hasn't put herself above the law at all.
You haven't proved anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#699 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
You've done it for me!
![]() All you've done is indicate that you don't like the Queen. I have no issue with that. You're not required to. What you haven't done is provide any evidence of wrong-doing on her part, which was really all I had been asking you to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#700 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 954
|
Quote:
It's a pretty accurate overview of what happened. Obviously I've missed out a great deal of detail but the main facts are solid. He was accused of theft, he maintained she'd given her permission, court case started, he said he was going to talk frankly, and at that point her memory suddenly returned.
The only thing that can be suggested in her support is that she genuinely forgot and even a prominent court case didn't jog her memory until just after Burrell said what he said. But that's stretching credibility past breaking point, in my opinion (< yes, that bit is my opinion). |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41.





