CONFIRMED Is Saturday's game cancelled? - MATCH OFF

[Booker4]

Well said.

I'm very much on the left, I wouldn't call myself a Royalist either but at the same time if you got rid of the Royals then I don't think for one minute that you'd remove the lack of wealth distribution in our society. It's much bigger than the Royals and look at America; without any Royal family but the wealth inequality there is far bigger than here. I'm not saying that because they don't have a Royal family is why they have greater wealth distribution, but removing the Royals won't solve the issue here. Like it or not it's part of the British identity even if an individual doesn't feel particularly patriotic as I don't personally (that's another story), but to remove it would result in a divided country and potentially riots etc.

 

[Ned the Donkey]

You guys still have royalty? How embarrassing is that? You have queens and dukes and princesses. Do you have wizards and fairies and dragons? For God's sake is this a country or a Renaissance Festival? What kind of Dungeons and Dragons bullshit is that? How dare you make fun of any democratically elected official when you still have this Dark Ages nonsense going on?
His Great and High Royal Mightiness Doug Stanhope, King of Bisbee

 

[Booker4]

Although I would understand (but not agree with) sport being cancelled this weekend, doing so any longer than that I think would be ridiculous

If we could have this weekend cancelled, and the midweek and then maybe just next weekend then that would be decent and then have the international break to get players back!

 

[Berkshire Blade]

You financially support many things that are wrong in principle. That won't change by swapping a monarch for a president.

Indeed, you already support the families of MP's, which they claim as expenses.

Good thing about mps is we can vote them out. Can't this lot.

 

[Bashamed]

But of course, your portrayal of what a monarch is, reflects the typical stereotype propagated by those who don't know, or don't want to know.

If you want to tear it all down, you should at least have something better to replace it with.

Well she has had a life of luxury. I have something better to replace it with. Nothing, because they serve no purpose now

 

[Katzenjammer]

I believe the hangers on aspect was removed years ago as paid for by the public purse.

Whilst people like to visit old buildings there’s far more allure when there is an acting Monarch.

The thought the Monarchy costs us isn’t true either. They bring in far more in tourism than they cost. The Queen started paying tax years ago too.

As you say what do you get by moving to a Republic? You vote in the government now anyway and the Monarch is largely symbolic and neutral.

You’d just have had President Boris instead of PM Boris. The fact he has to bow to a higher power at least means he actually had to audibly explain some of the shite his party were involved in. Under a Republic you wouldn’t even have that.

Yes, that's a very good point. Under a republic, the country is subjected to whims of the sitting president, who can do things constitutionally that are very hard to undo.

I used to be an ardent republican myself, but as my dad used to say to me many times as a kid, "If tha dunt know how it works, then bloody well leave it alooan".

 

[Katzenjammer]

Good thing about mps is we can vote them out. Can't this lot.

Well done, you still end up with the government.

 

[Berkshire Blade]

Well done, you still end up with the government.

Yes but we can, in theory, shape and change how governments are set up and what powers they have. A far better system than some bloodline being put at the top

 

[Katzenjammer]

Well she has had a life of luxury. I have something better to replace it with. Nothing, because they serve no purpose now

Nothing is not an option though, unless you want to do away with all governance.

 

[United Aren't Back.]

Considering the plans that will have been made I feel a lot of people will be very pissed off if they are all cancelled.

I fucking well will be that is for sure.

 

[LJBlade]

Well she has had a life of luxury. I have something better to replace it with. Nothing, because they serve no purpose now

Would you have swapped your life for hers? There's absolutely no way that I would. Having no freedom to just go anywhere or do anything you please doesn't sound like luxury to me.

 

[Katzenjammer]

Yes but we can, in theory, shape and change how governments are set up and what powers they have. A far better system than some bloodline being put at the top

But historically we also changed the role of monarchy via the parliamentary system. The Civil War and the subsequent restoration of the Crown bound the monarchy to a constitution, which superseded the notion of 'the divine right of kings'.

And besides, your voting power is largely determined by where you live. It's only a relatively small number of voters who actually determine the outcome of elections.

 

[247Blade]

Some people have no respect ... shameful!

 

[Bashamed]

Nothing is not an option though, unless you want to do away with all governance.

I don't think you understand the word government.

 

[Cheesebored]

.

Indeed, you already support the families of MP's, which they claim as expenses.

Wouldn't disagree, the difference being we get the option to vote them out.

 

[Katzenjammer]

I don't think you understand the word government.

I don't think you understand the word 'nothing', but hey ho.

 

[OLDBLADE43]

Nothing is not an option though, unless you want to do away with all governan

Good thing about mps is we can vote them out. Can't this l

Would you have swapped your life for hers? There's absolutely no way that I would. Having no freedom to just go anywhere or do anything you please doesn't sound like luxury to me.

At last - someone with common sense

 

[Ned the Donkey]

I'm very much on the left, I wouldn't call myself a Royalist either but at the same time if you got rid of the Royals then I don't think for one minute that you'd remove the lack of wealth distribution in our society. It's much bigger than the Royals and look at America; without any Royal family but the wealth inequality there is far bigger than here. I'm not saying that because they don't have a Royal family is why they have greater wealth distribution, but removing the Royals won't solve the issue here. Like it or not it's part of the British identity even if an individual doesn't feel particularly patriotic as I don't personally (that's another story), but to remove it would result in a divided country and potentially riots etc.

Fair point, up to a point. And you could say the same about the French Revolution (which people seem to ignore was followed by The Terror, and much more).

You can't unilaterally remove the Royals without consensus, as that would be an imposition, just as much as all this nauseating compulsory mourning. And to do so, history tells us, would lead to extended periods of political violence.

Power vacuums and power struggles tend to be very ugly.

That said it's good to have this forum, for instance, to find out that there are plenty of people who also find the bowing and scraping so utterly degrading.

Anyway, time and history will move on.

I've just seen the headline, King Charles to meet Prime Minister Liz Truss. That says a lot about the State we're in.

I hope someone somehow can build something out of the rubble and the ashes. I'd like young people to have a future.

 

[OLDBLADE43]

Fair point, up to a point. And you could say the same about the French Revolution (which people seem to ignore was followed by The Terror, and much more).

You can't unilaterally remove the Royals without consensus, as that would be an imposition, just as much as all this nauseating compulsory mourning. And to do so, history tells us, would lead to extended periods of political violence.

Power vacuums and power struggles tend to be very ugly.

That said it's good to have this forum, for instance, to find out that there are plenty of people who also find the bowing and scraping so utterly degrading.

Anyway, time and history will move on.

I've just seen the headline, King Charles to meet Prime Minister Liz Truss. That says a lot about the State we're in.

I hope someone somehow can build something out of the rubble and the ashes. I'd like young people to have a future.

could be worse you could be russian

 

[Roygbiv]

Sounds like they're leaving it up to the individual clubs

 

[Bladeulike]

Would you have swapped your life for hers? There's absolutely no way that I would. Having no freedom to just go anywhere or do anything you please doesn't sound like luxury to me.

It had a few compensations though. Seems to me there was plenty of scope for freedom in the palaces of Windsor and the vast acres of Balmoral and the months long extended summer breaks (not exactly a ‘couple of weeks off’ each year was it?) Freedom’s just another word for nothing else to do (as the song goes). Overrated in my view and when people are making real life choices between heating and eating I can’t agree with this point.

I’m definitely against cancelling games this weekend. It has no logic. Should all entertainment be cancelled? Close down theatres? Only news on the TV (when I say ‘news’ I mean more vacuous, repetitive bilge based on yesterday’s performance) Leisure centres? Cinemas? Why just football? This isn’t North Korea.

I completely respect people’s right to pay their respects in they way they see fit. I have the same opinion of collective mourning as I do of collective worship. If that gives you comfort then absolutely fine - don’t attend events and join others in churches, standing outside the closed gates of buildings you paid for but can’t enter or whatever. Just don’t make me do it or tell me who, how, and for how long I should ‘mourn’. I have respect for the queen but this media led deification culture is really not for me.

 

[torridon]

All football cancelled for the weekend in Northern Ireland.

 

[LJBlade]

It had a few compensations though. Seems to me there was plenty of scope for freedom in the palaces of Windsor and the vast acres of Balmoral and the months long extended summer breaks (not exactly a ‘couple of weeks off’ each year was it?) Freedom’s just another word for nothing else to do (as the song goes). Overrated in my view and when people are making real life choices between heating and eating I can’t agree with this point.

I’m definitely against cancelling games this weekend. It has no logic. Should all entertainment be cancelled? Close down theatres? Only news on the TV (when I say ‘news’ I mean more vacuous, repetitive bilge based on yesterday’s performance) Leisure centres? Cinemas? Why just football? This isn’t North Korea.

I completely respect people’s right to pay their respects in they way they see fit. I have the same opinion of collective mourning as I do of collective worship. If that gives you comfort then absolutely fine - don’t attend events and join others in churches, standing outside the closed gates of buildings you paid for but can’t enter or whatever. Just don’t make me do it or tell me who, how, and for how long I should ‘mourn’. I have respect for the queen but this media led deification culture is really not for me.

So you'd swap what she had for what you've got? That's fair enough, I'm just saying I wouldn't and her life wasn't 'luxury' in my view. How many times in her life do you reckon she's been able to just wander down to the local pub on her own after work on a Friday evening?

 

[CarlMcBlade]

Surely there would be no better mark of respect to our late Queen, than 30k people stood in solemn silence?

 

[Westran]

Sounds like they're leaving it up to the individual clubs

Wuedp?

 

[Panini]

Would you have swapped your life for hers? There's absolutely no way that I would. Having no freedom to just go anywhere or do anything you please doesn't sound like luxury to me.

I'm not sure I understand this. She absolutely had the freedom to go anywhere and do as she pleased. Just because you didn't see her down the bingo or on the Kop doesn't mean she was desperate to do those things but couldn't, for fear of being mobbed.

You must understand her role in the British Empire from the moment she inherited power. Even if you don't, or feel it's not relevant, until very recently she hand immunity from prosecution despite countless reports of activity that would be classed as criminal if you or I did it, she continued to cherry pick the laws that did and didn't apply to her, and it's not easy to turn a blind to the recruitment policy of royal residences.

Luxury to me and you means something very different. Her luxury was to not even have to look at us laymen and still bathe in opulence.

 

[Crafty Blade]

I believe the hangers on aspect was removed years ago as paid for by the public purse.

Whilst people like to visit old buildings there’s far more allure when there is an acting Monarch.

The thought the Monarchy costs us isn’t true either. They bring in far more in tourism than they cost. The Queen started paying tax years ago too.

As you say what do you get by moving to a Republic? You vote in the government now anyway and the Monarch is largely symbolic and neutral.

You’d just have had President Boris instead of PM Boris. The fact he has to bow to a higher power at least means he actually had to audibly explain some of the shite his party were involved in. Under a Republic you wouldn’t even have that.

Fair points perhaps, but in my view a monarchy is wrong in principle.

 

[LJBlade]

I'm not sure I understand this. She absolutely had the freedom to go anywhere and do as she pleased. Just because you didn't see her down the bingo or on the Kop doesn't mean she was desperate to do those things but couldn't, for fear of being mobbed.

You must understand her role in the British Empire from the moment she inherited power. Even if you don't, or feel it's not relevant, until very recently she hand immunity from prosecution despite countless reports of activity that would be classed as criminal if you or I did it, she continued to cherry pick the laws that did and didn't apply to her, and it's not easy to turn a blind to the recruitment policy of royal residences.

Luxury to me and you means something very different. Her luxury was to not even have to look at us laymen and still bathe in opulence.

Really, you think she had the freedom to go anywhere or do anything she liked? You reckon she could've just nipped down to Tesco for a frozen pizza whenever she felt like it? I imagine even if she had wanted to she'd have been accompanied by an entourage. I don't believe she was allowed to go anywhere in public on her own.

 

[bibbity bobbity boo]

Tickets still on sale for Saturdays match.

 

[AWetFlannel]

Would you have swapped your life for hers? There's absolutely no way that I would. Having no freedom to just go anywhere or do anything you please doesn't sound like luxury to me.

She chose her life. If she didn't like it, she could've said, "this is all a load of antiquated BS, I'm no different than anyone else, I'm off to get a real job."

Poor people don't have the freedom to go anywhere or do anything because we can't afford to. We have no say in the matter, plus don't get the absurd luxury she has lived in. I know which one I would pick, if not for my sense of shame.