Today's Jubilee Looky-Likey

[Jon Bon II]

England stick-ball player, Matty Potts

Sheffield United U21 reserves 'B' defender, Kacper Lopata

 

[Golden Gordon]

Pile of shit. Pile of shit.

 

[The Hobott]

Pile of shit. Pile of shit.

I used to be a republican and still am deep down but the thought of President Tony Blair keeps me awake at night.

 

[Jon Bon II]

I used to be a republican and still am deep down but the thought of President Tony Blair keeps me awake at night.

I have that problem but it's X-Hamster.com rather than Tony Blair.

 

[pommpey]

I used to be a republican and still am deep down but the thought of President Tony Blair keeps me awake at night.

Monarchy-haters are allus a bit shallow on viable alternatives. You know. Constitutional realignment. Share of power. Executive. Judicial and Presidential privilege and what the executive orders might comprise if needed. Armed Forces structure, Policing, Bill of Rights, upper and lower house and the process of legislature, She's involved in much, if not all of that directly or indirectly. I'd rather her cutting ribbons than some superannuated ex-head of Nissan UK to be honest. At least we know where she came from and her family have human error writ large all over them, regardless of the opulence and regality.

I mean, withdrawing from a fucking horrendous and hateful at times economic bloc has crippled this country, let alone sacking the current head of state for no particular reason but inverted class snobbery and flamethowering a millennia of societal and historic precedent would just be 'oven-ready', wouldn't it?

pommpey

 

[Hull Blade]

No politics. But an elected head of state ie president does not have to be a political appointment. Many countries have an elected head of state who has no political influence. Its just a ceremonial role with the power and decision making staying in the parliament. US to a small degree...ie power is in the Senate. Which is why a POTUS in a congress that is dominated by the other party is a lame duck.

 

[Bl4desutd]

View attachment 137065View attachment 137066
Pile of shit. Pile of shit.

What a tosser you are and I don’t even know you

 

[AWetFlannel]

Monarchy-haters are allus a bit shallow on viable alternatives. You know. Constitutional realignment. Share of power. Executive. Judicial and Presidential privilege and what the executive orders might comprise if needed. Armed Forces structure, Policing, Bill of Rights, upper and lower house and the process of legislature, She's involved in much, if not all of that directly or indirectly. I'd rather her cutting ribbons than some superannuated ex-head of Nissan UK to be honest. At least we know where she came from and her family have human error writ large all over them, regardless of the opulence and regality.

I mean, withdrawing from a fucking horrendous and hateful at times economic bloc has crippled this country, let alone sacking the current head of state for no particular reason but inverted class snobbery and flamethowering a millennia of societal and historic precedent would just be 'oven-ready', wouldn't it?

pommpey

She and her family live in ridiculous affluence payed for by taxpayers, at a time of economic crisis for the poorest in our society. Inverted class snobbery or common sense?

Not to mention the 1000 other perfectly good reasons we shouldn't have a monarchy. The viable alternative is literally anything else done by most of the Western world.

 

[Cheesebored]

She and her family live in ridiculous affluence payed for by taxpayers, at a time of economic crisis for the poorest in our society. Inverted class snobbery or common sense?

Not to mention the 1000 other perfectly good reasons we shouldn't have a monarchy. The viable alternative is literally anything else done by most of the Western world.

The absolute absurdity of likening someone on a superannuated pension to the cost of the Royal family.

 

[Bashamed]

She and her family live in ridiculous affluence payed for by taxpayers, at a time of economic crisis for the poorest in our society. Inverted class snobbery or common sense?

Not to mention the 1000 other perfectly good reasons we shouldn't have a monarchy. The viable alternative is literally anything else done by most of the Western world.

I was wondering why we need an alternative. If she lived on a council estate the exact same people fawning all over her would be spitting poison. It's quite pathetic.

 

[Champagneblade]

Monarchy-haters are allus a bit shallow on viable alternatives. You know. Constitutional realignment. Share of power. Executive. Judicial and Presidential privilege and what the executive orders might comprise if needed. Armed Forces structure, Policing, Bill of Rights, upper and lower house and the process of legislature, She's involved in much, if not all of that directly or indirectly. I'd rather her cutting ribbons than some superannuated ex-head of Nissan UK to be honest. At least we know where she came from and her family have human error writ large all over them, regardless of the opulence and regality.

I mean, withdrawing from a fucking horrendous and hateful at times economic bloc has crippled this country, let alone sacking the current head of state for no particular reason but inverted class snobbery and flamethowering a millennia of societal and historic precedent would just be 'oven-ready', wouldn't it?

pommpey

I'd never class myself as a Royalist. My Mum is. my Dad isn't. But if I'm not mistaken I think the 'paying for the hangers on' has largely been dealt with. I may be wrong but I think we're no longer giving allowances from tax payer contributions to the wider group. Plus the Crown hasn't been tax exempt for a long time.

Maybe the Queen flicks them a quid her two of her own but that's her business.

This is what I was originally against. Maybe I've mellowed as I've got older but I have no issue with the Queen or the immediate line. Anyone rallying against the Queen herself I think is harsh. Yes, she's enjoyed a certain priviledge. She's never had to travel coach for instance. But it's not as if she just goes on constant holidays to where she fancies. "Another trip to the Seychelles, darling?" "Why not?"

She has had obligations she fulfils in terms of visiting frequently, has all her time mapped out, probably with very little 'pleasing herself' time.

I once went on a business trip to Seoul. I thought that sounded great. Nice hotel, expenses etc. I flew through the night, arrived at the office at midday with very little sleep and the next two days were mapped out hour by hour. Evening meals were planned as well. I had essentially enough time to have a shower, get changed and that was it. If anyone asked me about Korea I can describe the hotel, the office and the restaurant but very little else.

I'd imagine that's how 90% of her time is overseas.

She's still fulfilling those engagements at 96. Maybe less travel but her life hasn't been her own. 96? That's remarkable.

Some might revel in her situation but once you get over the comfort and lavishness so much of the freedom isn't there. I'm sure plenty in poverty would swap but for those of us who consider ourselves comfortable enough, I'm not sure the extra cash would make so much difference at the expense of losing control over your individual freedom. Bigger car, lots of them, travel in 1st but then some other person decides what you do and where you go depending on the obligations they see every single day.

Plus of course when the going got tough the Royal family didn't skulk off. She put herself to work in the armed forces. Yes she was far from harm's way but the option of not mucking in was there. For all his detractors with his wife, you can't say Harry kept himself out of harm's way. He was in Afghanistan. I understand it is all relative but she's done more than her bit to represent the Nation.

 

[Bell4]

I'd never class myself as a Royalist. My Mum is. my Dad isn't. But if I'm not mistaken I think the 'paying for the hangers on' has largely been dealt with. I may be wrong but I think we're no longer giving allowances from tax payer contributions to the wider group. Plus the Crown hasn't been tax exempt for a long time.

Maybe the Queen flicks them a quid her two of her own but that's her business.

This is what I was originally against. Maybe I've mellowed as I've got older but I have no issue with the Queen or the immediate line. Anyone rallying against the Queen herself I think is harsh. Yes, she's enjoyed a certain priviledge. She's never had to travel coach for instance. But it's not as if she just goes on constant holidays to where she fancies. "Another trip to the Seychelles, darling?" "Why not?"

She has had obligations she fulfils in terms of visiting frequently, has all her time mapped out, probably with very little 'pleasing herself' time.

I once went on a business trip to Seoul. I thought that sounded great. Nice hotel, expenses etc. I flew through the night, arrived at the office at midday with very little sleep and the next two days were mapped out hour by hour. Evening meals were planned as well. I had essentially enough time to have a shower, get changed and that was it. If anyone asked me about Korea I can describe the hotel, the office and the restaurant but very little else.

I'd imagine that's how 90% of her time is overseas.

She's still fulfilling those engagements at 96. Maybe less travel but her life hasn't been her own. 96? That's remarkable.

Some might revel in her situation but once you get over the comfort and lavishness so much of the freedom isn't there. I'm sure plenty in poverty would swap but for those of us who consider ourselves comfortable enough, I'm not sure the extra cash would make so much difference at the expense of losing control over your individual freedom. Bigger car, lots of them, travel in 1st but then some other person decides what you do and where you go depending on the obligations they see every single day.

Plus of course when the going got tough the Royal family didn't skulk off. She put herself to work in the armed forces. Yes she was far from harm's way but the option of not mucking in was there. For all his detractors with his wife, you can't say Harry kept himself out of harm's way. He was in Afghanistan. I understand it is all relative but she's done more than her bit to represent the Nation.

Totally agree

And as always , beautifully put .

 

[Chingo]

They generate more money by far than they cost , last weekend probably generated enough to keep them for years and years!
Their life has not been their own having to be here there and everywhere, for every tour of South Africa there is a thousand ribbon cuttings in the the UK etc that I am sure they would rather not be doing … not to mention living in a goldfish bowl where their every move is watched !
I think they deserve every penny they get.

 

[Espania blade]

Monarchy-haters are allus a bit shallow on viable alternatives. You know. Constitutional realignment. Share of power. Executive. Judicial and Presidential privilege and what the executive orders might comprise if needed. Armed Forces structure, Policing, Bill of Rights, upper and lower house and the process of legislature, She's involved in much, if not all of that directly or indirectly. I'd rather her cutting ribbons than some superannuated ex-head of Nissan UK to be honest. At least we know where she came from and her family have human error writ large all over them, regardless of the opulence and regality.

I mean, withdrawing from a fucking horrendous and hateful at times economic bloc has crippled this country, let alone sacking the current head of state for no particular reason but inverted class snobbery and flamethowering a millennia of societal and historic precedent would just be 'oven-ready', wouldn't it?

pommpey

Another great report Pommp's - keep it up

 

[AWetFlannel]

I'd never class myself as a Royalist. My Mum is. my Dad isn't. But if I'm not mistaken I think the 'paying for the hangers on' has largely been dealt with. I may be wrong but I think we're no longer giving allowances from tax payer contributions to the wider group. Plus the Crown hasn't been tax exempt for a long time.

Maybe the Queen flicks them a quid her two of her own but that's her business.

This is what I was originally against. Maybe I've mellowed as I've got older but I have no issue with the Queen or the immediate line. Anyone rallying against the Queen herself I think is harsh. Yes, she's enjoyed a certain priviledge. She's never had to travel coach for instance. But it's not as if she just goes on constant holidays to where she fancies. "Another trip to the Seychelles, darling?" "Why not?"

She has had obligations she fulfils in terms of visiting frequently, has all her time mapped out, probably with very little 'pleasing herself' time.

I once went on a business trip to Seoul. I thought that sounded great. Nice hotel, expenses etc. I flew through the night, arrived at the office at midday with very little sleep and the next two days were mapped out hour by hour. Evening meals were planned as well. I had essentially enough time to have a shower, get changed and that was it. If anyone asked me about Korea I can describe the hotel, the office and the restaurant but very little else.

I'd imagine that's how 90% of her time is overseas.

She's still fulfilling those engagements at 96. Maybe less travel but her life hasn't been her own. 96? That's remarkable.

Some might revel in her situation but once you get over the comfort and lavishness so much of the freedom isn't there. I'm sure plenty in poverty would swap but for those of us who consider ourselves comfortable enough, I'm not sure the extra cash would make so much difference at the expense of losing control over your individual freedom. Bigger car, lots of them, travel in 1st but then some other person decides what you do and where you go depending on the obligations they see every single day.

Plus of course when the going got tough the Royal family didn't skulk off. She put herself to work in the armed forces. Yes she was far from harm's way but the option of not mucking in was there. For all his detractors with his wife, you can't say Harry kept himself out of harm's way. He was in Afghanistan. I understand it is all relative but she's done more than her bit to represent the Nation.

Describing it as a certain privilege has to be the understatement of the century. She is officially better than everyone she meets due to her title.

Many of us have "done our bit" and are left on the brink of poverty. Her duties are not the same as a normal job, and contribute little to society. Would anyone seriously argue that our money wouldn't be better spent on a load more doctors, nurses or teachers?

 

[MobileBlade]

They generate more money by far than they cost , last weekend probably generated enough to keep them for years and years!
Their life has not been their own having to be here there and everywhere, for every tour of South Africa there is a thousand ribbon cuttings in the the UK etc that I am sure they would rather not be doing … not to mention living in a goldfish bowl where their every move is watched !
I think they deserve every penny they get.

The cost to the taxpayer is £1.50 each per year.

 

[Chingo]

Describing it as a certain privilege has to be the understatement of the century. She is officially better than everyone she meets due to her title.

Many of us have "done our bit" and are left on the brink of poverty. Her duties are not the same as a normal job, and contribute little to society. Would anyone seriously argue that our money wouldn't be better spent on a load more doctors, nurses or teachers?

And how many tourist will they bring to the country , the royals cost the country nowt!

 

[Chingo]

A screen shot of a google search shows the pros and cons!

 

[pommpey]

The absolute absurdity of likening someone on a superannuated pension to the cost of the Royal family.

Yeah. Especially when he or she (they/it/dog/lamp-post) have massive business interests and lack any historic credibility toward the brand of 'UK plc'.

Let's put it this way. She is, as sovereign, the crown head of the Armed Forces. My allegiance of service is to her and my superiors own Royal Commissions, both they and I wear her crown in our badging. Our business 'boss' is Def Sec. Line and dotted management. One way we serve the government and the other we serve the nation.

Our collective response to serving an elected HoS with special powers of executive, especially one who could be at odds with our government, isn't good. We know where we stand with her, and she with us. Her knowledge about us is impressive and her children and grandchildren have served amongst us and beside us.

She is also Defender of the Faith of the Church of England. What if an elected President was an athiest?

pommpey

 

[Cheesebored]

Yeah. Especially when he or she (they/it/dog/lamp-post) have massive business interests and lack any historic credibility toward the brand of 'UK plc'.

Let's put it this way. She is, as sovereign, the crown head of the Armed Forces. My allegiance of service is to her and my superiors own Royal Commissions, both they and I wear her crown in our badging. Our business 'boss' is Def Sec. Line and dotted management. One way we serve the government and the other we serve the nation.

Our collective response to serving an elected HoS with special powers of executive, especially one who could be at odds with our government, isn't good. We know where we stand with her, and she with us. Her knowledge about us is impressive and her children and grandchildren have served amongst us and beside us.

She is also Defender of the Faith of the Church of England. What if an elected President was an athiest?

pommpey

I get that you took the Queens shilling and your service is something you're proud of and you have my respect for that. However your reply in no way counters the argument regarding costs between one person's pension and the cost of the Royal family. Most of your reply is rhetoric, the rest is nonsense.

 

[Kanye]

Shape-shifting lizard with a nonce son, what's not to like.

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

I was always ambivalent on the subject, until she used her vast wealth to pay off the victim of her paedophile son...

I get all the regal 'head of state' argument, but if she's that noble, how do you countenance bailing out your nonce of a son? Surely, if she's as regal as Pompey makes out, how does she square that argument?

Bit like religion and dinosaurs! I'd happily believe and sign up if someone could eloquently address these contradictions...

 

[vegleeds]

Verse 3 of All Things Bright and Beautiful:

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

Interesting to see the forelock tuggers on the forum..... er forelock tugging. Royal Family = the apex of the same old power and privilege in this country and still using "God" to justify this nonsense.

 

[Alan Birchenall's hair]

Don't care much about them personally, but most people seem to like 'em. Can't really see as waving at people from a posh car and watching local tribesmen dance about in their trollies is that important though. And interestingly, London and Paris receive about the same number of visitors each year (one or the other slightly ahead depending on which source you take). And the Frenchies got rid of their royals more than 200 years ago. So don't reckon the idea that they are a big tourist draw holds much water. But hey! I love cricket while lots of folks don't get it, so I suppose you get your kicks where you can.....

 

[SW12 to S12 to S18]

No politics. But an elected head of state ie president does not have to be a political appointment. Many countries have an elected head of state who has no political influence. Its just a ceremonial role with the power and decision making staying in the parliament. US to a small degree...ie power is in the Senate. Which is why a POTUS in a congress that is dominated by the other party is a lame duck.

That all sounds completely pointless to me.

 

[pommpey]

I get that you took the Queens shilling and your service is something you're proud of and you have my respect for that. However your reply in no way counters the argument regarding costs between one person's pension and the cost of the Royal family. Most of your reply is rhetoric, the rest is nonsense.

And you've failed to align (quelle surprise) the true meaning of what I am saying.

Better to have someone there whose 'duty' it is to be head of state, rather than someone whose 'ambition' it is to be head of state, eh?

One begets the ever beady eye of public scrutiny and loyalty, the other can do what the fuck they want under a fixed-term-plan.

pommpey

 

[pommpey]

So don't reckon the idea that they are a big tourist draw holds much water.

I'd counter that they, as part of a wider, taller historic framework which includes the meaner and badder parts of human history, the achievements, the western growth and yes, the more savoury aspects of our development, the Firm is a massive tourist draw. What did you learn at school in history? And how much of that features in other countries syllabuses?

Visit Rome, why don't you, and tell me everything there isn't a tourist pull. From the Coliseum to the Vatican and beyond, it's all woven into ourselves in one way or another.

A recent study quoted the other day on a BBC interview cited asset costs of the Firm and the generated income and employment of climbing on for £16 billion.

Put it this way. Extract the monarchy from the capital alone and what exactly is there to visit in London apart from theatreland and museums?

pommpey

 

[Angef1Blade]

And how many tourist will they bring to the country , the royals cost the country nowt!

I was always ambivalent on the subject, until she used her vast wealth to pay off the victim of her paedophile son...

I get all the regal 'head of state' argument, but if she's that noble, how do you countenance bailing out your nonce of a son? Surely, if she's as regal as Pompey makes out, how does she square that argument?

Bit like religion and dinosaurs! I'd happily believe and sign up if someone could eloquently address these contradictions...

Another benevolent gesture too -

 

[Varkanoid]

Put it this way. Extract the monarchy from the capital alone and what exactly is there to visit in London apart from theatreland and museums?

pommpey

I also wouldnt fancy Boris' head on coins in my pocket either !

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

I'd counter that they, as part of a wider, taller historic framework which includes the meaner and badder parts of human history, the achievements, the western growth and yes, the more savoury aspects of our development, the Firm is a massive tourist draw. What did you learn at school in history? And how much of that features in other countries syllabuses?

Visit Rome, why don't you, and tell me everything there isn't a tourist pull. From the Coliseum to the Vatican and beyond, it's all woven into ourselves in one way or another.

A recent study quoted the other day on a BBC interview cited asset costs of the Firm and the generated income and employment of climbing on for £16 billion.

Put it this way. Extract the monarchy from the capital alone and what exactly is there to visit in London apart from theatreland and museums?

pommpey

Away games?!