Matthew Le God

You've won the thread with that retort. It really helped further your case.

There are benefits to the monarchy, I don't deny that. But my main objection is the principle of descendants of successful warlords through fluke of birth, regardless of ability being in a position of power and influence within our country. We aren't truly democratic until the monarchy is gone and the second house reformed into a proper democratic system. That is a ridiculous analogy. Being born British doesn't mean you are born into a position of constitutional power and influence. The Prime Minister is never going to ask you if they can form a government, and why... because you weren't born into the royal family.

So its just longevity you find remarkable, not anything she has actually done. Just that she has lived a long time. How is that an achievement? You say "hardly a mistake", but can you provide an example of the type of thing she could possibly have done that you would have labelled as a mistake?

How do you know for certain her mental condition? In any case, her family has had hundreds of years to learn how to bring up children in such an environment. I really don't think its a big achievement to be one of the most privileged humans in history.

The main thrust of your counter argument keeps coming back to money. As I said in post #23... Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle.

Mythical fairy stories are for bed time master Fry.

What has she done well that is so remarkable? What kind of things would she had to have done for you not to consider her reign conducted well? Its a pretty difficult "job" to screw up.

Fantastic at doing what? She is the head of state, but what does she actually do well?

I'm sure the millions of pounds of state aid help her cope with the nightmarish existence she is clearly enduring.

Wouldn't it be better if we appoint "ambassador" for the country on merit? Even if were true that she is a good one (I'm yet to see what she is actually good at), that is no guarantee any of her descendants will be, yet due to it being monarchy they get the job regardless of their level of competance.

I did.

Does she really deserve praise for what is essentially just... living a long time?

Normally because the referee bottles it and takes what seems to be the easy option of only one yellow card. Footballers, managers, pundits and fans then think this is the norm and how the rules should play out, but it is actually down to the ref not doing as he should.

Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle.

You get royals (like Prince Charles) using their status "achieved" through fluke of birth to lobby and attempt to influence politicians on hundreds of occasions over the last 40 years. Would he do it if he didn't have some success? That is a terrible analogy. I didn't say the individuals should be removed from society. I think the way this country chooses its head of state should be democratic. I don't care if its 1p, 50p or £200, we shouldn't be subsidising their lifestyle because they have warlord ancestors who fought their way to power. They have income streams from other sources they could use instead of the taxpayer.

Technically she still has power, just chooses not to use it because of the **** storm it would create if she did. She is also funded by the taxpayer.

It shouldn't even be her... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru024qcTpaA

Congratulations for living a long time and owning a lot of hats? Because a proper democracy, where heads of state are voted for is fairer than a family born with silver spoons in their mouths just because hundreds of years ago their ancestors were successful warlords.

What are Clasie and Bertand worrying about? What to have for dinner tonight?

The ref did the hand signal for advantage and probably verbally communicated it, so the players were aware a foul had been committed. I don't see why it really matters if Baird knew he was one more yellow from a red or not. If he didn't want to be sent off, don't foul players. That would allow a player to essentially get away with a yellow card offence. How is that fair?

All I did was ask what the alternative was, you and the N. Ireland manager haven't given one. Had the ref stopped play and booked him after the first offence then the opposition would be miffed advantage wasn't used as they were on the attack. Do you think he should have stopped play after the first foul and booked Baird? If you were the opposition would you not be upset that advantage wasn't used as you were still on the attack?

What do you think the ref should have done then? There was a clear advantage to be played and they would have been upset if he had stopped the move, the ref is allowed to go back and book previous incidents and the second incident was clearly worth another booking. Baird deserved what he got, the second one he had no intention of getting the ball you could see the aggression on his face and was purely out to hack him down.

There was a 2 point gap separating the two teams. We were competing for a league place with them and Spurs, not with QPR or Burnley as Dalek2003 and alpine_saint would have have you believe.

You don't think we are competition rivals with teams that finished a mere 2 & 4 points above us last season with significantly worse goal differences than us? Why not?