benjii Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Over-dramatic nonsense by the same few as ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 I am of course in favour of the mornarchy.....I serve queen and country etc etc... give me Queen Lizzy over president brown or blair or david "uk was a junior ww2 partner" cameron....imagine them being head of state...!!!! no thanks... we will retain a monarchy for all of our lifetimes... they are part of our heritage...does it matter that I do not know them or they have never heard of me....but then, being british means you are not allowed to have a heritage/traditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 24 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 24 July, 2010 As I suspected, a forelock tugger. What makes me laugh is that most people, who are deferential to the Royal Family and the institution of Monarchy, seem to think they are part of some great national heritage, by being a British citizen. Well let me inform you. You are nothing to them. In fact, you are less than nothing. Your opinion means zero. The Royal Family are not in place by your agreement, but there whether you like it or not. And there's not a single thing you can do about it. Whether you are a massive fan or not, is inconsequential. There are 65-70 million people in the UK and they are first in a queue of one, and you are last in a queue of 65-70 million. On any other subject, you'd be ranting and raving at the hypocrisy and sheer wrongness of the scenario. Do you not get it now..? As much as I respect your minority view, it is just that - a minority view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 As much as I respect your minority view, it is just that - a minority view. Well there's an awful lot of people out here who are, as you say, in the minority. I think it should all end when Lilibet passes away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 I don't mind keeping it. It's a decent tourist attraction etc. But I certainly think the money spent on them is far too high, and the amount of land they own etc is nothing short of obscene. It should be used for the national good in some way or other. Not for inbred morons to hunt on etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the colonel Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 I don't mind keeping it. It's a decent tourist attraction etc. But I certainly think the money spent on them is far too high, and the amount of land they own etc is nothing short of obscene. It should be used for the national good in some way or other. Not for inbred morons to hunt on etc. yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Tired, old boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 (edited) I feel people admire the current queen. I do and I'm a borderline republican. Whilst this nation would never abolish the crown I, like many, do not view the institution with any sort of reverence and would never bow or call her ma'am. Edited 24 July, 2010 by View From The Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 (edited) "Monarchy is a lot of bowing and bobbing just because somebodys grandfather was a bigger murdering bastard than yours" Terry Pratchett "Men at Arms" If Lizzie can hang on and outlive Chuck, the whole sorry mess can be swept under a convenient carpet. After all, the whole damned world seems more obsessed with Katie friggin' Price's scripted serial matrimonial farces and Cheryl Cole's pseudo malaria these days. Lets have a 'President for life' elected by the readership of Hello & OK, - far more relevant to modern societal values. Edited 24 July, 2010 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 I feel people admire the current queen. I do and I'm a borderline republican. Whilst this nation would never abolish the crown I, like many, do not view the institution with any sort of reverence and would never bow or call her ma'am. i think that is how most people see it, the reality is in this day and age its the sort of nonsense which belongs to history books and disney films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 "Monarchy is a lot of bowing and bobbing just because somebodys grandfather was a bigger murdering bastard than yours" Terry Pratchett "Men at Arms" If Lizzie can hang on and outlive Chuck, the whole sorry mess can be swept under a convenient carpet. After all, the whole damned world seems more obsessed with Katie friggin' Price's scripted serial matrimonial farces and Cheryl Cole's pseudo malaria these days. Lets have a 'President for life' elected by the readership of Hello & OK, - far more relevant to modern societal values. SUBO for Queen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 SUBO for Queen? All you need is a popular figurehead, and she'd be far more accountable than the German lot currently enthroned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 SUBO for Queen? All you need is a popular figurehead, and she'd be far more accountable than the German lot currently enthroned. I think she'd have a lot more in common with the people and would probably do just as good a job, if not better, than some of those in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 I know 2 people on incapacity benefit - both could work if they wanted to but choose not to because when you do the sums they are almost as well off just sat on their arse. I don't blame them either, why bust your arse in some dull job when you don't have to. The system needs to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 I know 2 people on incapacity benefit - both could work if they wanted to but choose not to because when you do the sums they are almost as well off just sat on their arse. I don't blame them either, why bust your arse in some dull job when you don't have to. The system needs to change. Work houses are the answer. If the slob families are given an ultimatem of working or being dragged from their council house/flat to the work house they'll soon get their fat arses into gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Work houses are the answer. If the slob families are given an ultimatem of working or being dragged from their council house/flat to the work house they'll soon get their fat arses into gear. Ha Dune. Have you been watching Dickens "A Christmas Carol" again? Mate is this the 21st century,not the nineteenth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Work houses are the answer. If the slob families are given an ultimatem of working or being dragged from their council house/flat to the work house they'll soon get their fat arses into gear. I would have a scheme where all people on job seekers have to work 3 days a week to receive their allowance (litter picking, cleaning graffiti etc), special jobs would be arranged for those on incapacity. Only the severely disabled wont have to earn their money. Also the tax system needs to be sorted so that lower paid workers are much better off than anyone on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Only the severely disabled wont have to earn their money. Stanley prefers the Nazi method of dealing with the disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Also the tax system needs to be sorted so that lower paid workers are much better off than anyone on benefits. 100000000% agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Stanley prefers the Nazi method of dealing with the disabled. You're very boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 I know 2 people on incapacity benefit - both could work if they wanted to but choose not to because when you do the sums they are almost as well off just sat on their arse. I don't blame them either, why bust your arse in some dull job when you don't have to. The system needs to change. I blame them. If they are claiming incapacity benefit when not being incapacitated then they are thieving ****-bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 I would have a scheme where all people on job seekers have to work 3 days a week to receive their allowance (litter picking, cleaning graffiti etc), special jobs would be arranged for those on incapacity. Only the severely disabled wont have to earn their money. Also the tax system needs to be sorted so that lower paid workers are much better off than anyone on benefits. I suppose the counterargument is that if you tie up three days of their week then they won't have as much time to find a proper job. But I agree with you - there needs to be some return for the money handed over. It's a privilege to receive it, not a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 I suppose the counterargument is that if you tie up three days of their week then they won't have as much time to find a proper job. But I agree with you - there needs to be some return for the money handed over. It's a privilege to receive it, not a right. 4 days a week is more than enough time to apply for jobs and arrange interviews. When I graduated from uni I worked full time (on a pittance while renting in London) while I applied and found a proper job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 100000000% agree. Absolutely! Because, at the moment, you and me, as taxpayers, are in effect subsidising low paying employers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Absolutely! Because, at the moment, you and me, as taxpayers, are in effect subsidising low paying employers. The real issue is the cost of renting in this country, and the reason it's too high is the influx of immigrants, and the reason for the influx is Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Oh dear, here we go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 The real issue is the cost of renting in this country, and the reason it's too high is the influx of immigrants, and the reason for the influx is Labour. The reason rents are high is because the demand for rented property is high and a lot of people cant afford to buy into the housing market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 The reason rents are high is because the demand for rented property is high and a lot of people cant afford to buy into the housing market. And the reason people can't get into the housing market is because prices are artificially high due to the buy-to-let market. And the buy-to-let market is a lucrative investment because of the opening up of our borders to migrants who require rented accomodation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 The reason rents are high is because the demand for rented property is high and a lot of people cant afford to buy into the housing market. And this is driven, in part, by the obscene bonuses paid to people in the financial sector. They buy up property in London, inflating the prices, and this then has a trickle-down effect, firstly on the south east and then the rest of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 The real issue is the cost of renting in this country, and the reason it's too high is the influx of immigrants, and the reason for the influx is Labour. oh dears far right views coming to the surface again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 oh dears far right views coming to the surface again. I'd hardly call the views of the UKIP far right. I like to think of myself and my party as compasionate conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 My thread earlier highlighted the point that Southampton is the most expensive city in the UK in which to rent versus average wages. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?24012-Southampton-most-expensive-city-to-rent The author thinks its because of demand caused by about 40,000 students Id add another 10,000+ Polish So the problem is much more from students than immigration? Either way the biggest problem is the greedy poperty developers/buy to let army who have battled to own as many houses as possible thus pushing up prices. Friend of a friend owns about 100 houses. How can that be right when most local young families cant get on the ladder? No wonder Southampton has one of the largest waiting lists for Council Housing. I think individuals/companies should have a strict limit on how many properties they can own. Perhaps three max - one for main residence, one for investment, one for holiday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 And this is driven, in part, by the obscene bonuses paid to people in the financial sector. They buy up property in London, inflating the prices, and this then has a trickle-down effect, firstly on the south east and then the rest of the country. Tenuous class-envy driven argument of the month goes to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 I think individuals/companies should have a strict limit on how many properties they can own. Perhaps three max - one for main residence, one for investment, one for holiday. Not a bad idea IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Tenuous class-envy driven argument of the month goes to... Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yippee But there's truth in this argument as well you know. Must be right - the Torygraph says so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/6832567/Bankers-bonuses-boost-price-of-luxury-homes.html http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23794400-bonus-belt-central-london-house-prices-jump-51-percent-to-conquer-peak-of-2007.do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 The real issue is the cost of renting in this country, and the reason it's too high is the influx of immigrants, and the reason for the influx is Labour. Still posting your thick racist bile Stanley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfcuk fan Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Originally Posted by derry A person at my golf club has a disabled badge and parks his car outside the front door in a disabled bay then proceeds to walk 18 holes at least six days a week. I contacted the blue badge unit and was told that he was entitled to the badge because he was on disability. Nice work if you can get it. What's his handicap? Wicked response ... I Lolled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 And this is driven, in part, by the obscene bonuses paid to people in the financial sector. They buy up property in London, inflating the prices, and this then has a trickle-down effect, firstly on the south east and then the rest of the country. Well you probably won't have to worry about it for much longer because unless Call me Dave manages to turn things around a bit sharpish, they're all going to be heading over here to the land of the free with their money, where the'll be made very welcome, or over to Asia........and who can blame them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Still posting your thick racist bile Stanley. You call anyone who dares to question immigration fascists, but facism by it's definition is: Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent This definition sums up your attitude towards free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 they're all going to be heading over here to the land of the free with their money, where the'll be made very welcome, or over to Asia ...and that's such a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Well you probably won't have to worry about it for much longer because unless Call me Dave manages to turn things around a bit sharpish, they're all going to be heading over here to the land of the free with their money, where the'll be made very welcome, or over to Asia........and who can blame them? America has been (note the past tense) one of the most feeble and short lived "super powers" ever on earth. You haven't even got an Empire to show for your time of supremacy so don't kid yourself that America has been anything special. Your time is over Saint George and it's all a down hill decline from here. China is the superpower in waiting and Sh4nghai is the engine at the heart of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Le Taxi Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Tough one. I have ME but I stll work part time and do not claim benefit. A friend of mine who has ME works full time. I guess it depends on the severity. (by the way this is Mrs D not his Lordship ) rule1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 America has been (note the past tense) one of the most feeble and short lived "super powers" ever on earth. You haven't even got an Empire to show for your time of supremacy so don't kid yourself that America has been anything special. Your time is over Saint George and it's all a down hill decline from here. China is the superpower in waiting and Sh4nghai is the engine at the heart of it. you are joking.....right..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 You call anyone who dares to question immigration fascists, but facism by it's definition is: Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent This definition sums up your attitude towards free speech. It's obvious that you are free to state your opinions. Even if you are known as a Nazi sympathiser with racist, xenophobic tendencies you are entitled to them and publicise them. Of course you have to be careful that they are not seen, legally, as incitement or inflammation. I commend you for managing, under pressure, to try and ensure that the Leopard's spots remain changed and that the dog has learned new tricks. Whether those policies have a place in a supposedly civilised society is up for debate. As an aside I see that loveable rogue Nick Griffin declined attempting to attend a Garden Party at Buckingham Palace last week. So much for his speech being free when even our Sovereign wouldn't stain her white glove with his soiled hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 you are joking.....right..? Come now, you know he is always most deadly serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 And lets look at Americas millitary achievements: 1776 - Won the war of independence. No you didn't the English defeat the English 1918 - Joined WW1 at the last minute and contributed very little. 1945 - Joined WW2 after the battle of Britain and helped break a stalemate 1973 - After 10 years in Vietnam withdrew because you couldn't win 1991 - Retreated from Iraq 1994 - We've all seen "Black Hawk Down" lol Post 2010 - Still in Iraq and about to retreat from another failure, still in Afghanistan and about to retreat from another failure, still in South Korea and can't do **** all about one of the poorest nations on earth. Trust me Saint George, compared to the great powers and empires of history (the british Empire being the greatest), America will have very little space in the history text books in the year 3000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Well you probably won't have to worry about it for much longer because unless Call me Dave manages to turn things around a bit sharpish, they're all going to be heading over here to the land of the free with their money, where the'll be made very welcome, or over to Asia........and who can blame them? The problem with all the people leaving here to go to America is that those entrepreneurs who have invested in owning homes to let will, due to market forces, have to revise their aspirations and rents accordingly. So much for CMD looking after the small businessman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 you are joking.....right..? The fact you are asking the question merely highlights your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yippee But there's truth in this argument as well you know. Must be right - the Torygraph says so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/6832567/Bankers-bonuses-boost-price-of-luxury-homes.html http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23794400-bonus-belt-central-london-house-prices-jump-51-percent-to-conquer-peak-of-2007.do I agree that there are issues around the affordability of housing. These are issues at the low end though and I am pretty confident that the number of middle/working class people who mortgaged themselves to the hilt to get a buy-to-let or two far outnumber the minimal number of people who receive large bonuses in the city. Generally, I'm all for freedom but I think the idea of restricting property ownership may be a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 July, 2010 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2010 According to the "Washington Post," China became the largest foreign creditor to the U.S. in November 2008. Because of this, China has great influence over the American economy. Should China choose to stop buying U.S. debt, it would cease one of the largest in-flows of capital into the country, making it harder for businesses to obtain loans and raising interest rates and commodity prices for consumers. If China were to begin selling U.S. debt--essentially cashing in its government bonds--it would actually remove money from the U.S. economy, creating an even more dire situation. Another issue is the disparity between the currencies. In the global economy, the dollar has much more buying power than the yuan (China's denomination). This makes U.S. goods more expensive to export to foreign nations than Chinese goods. As such, China's prices for manufactured goods are far more competitive than those of the U.S Read more: Why Does China Buy U.S. Debt? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4618388_does-china-buy-us-debt.html#ixzz0ujGF3WZj So Saint George as yu can see the US of A is in quite a fragile position. You are, like the rest of us, essentially part of the Chinese Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now