Body language and appearance speak volumes to those whose vision is sufficiently sharp to read such information.
Time index 2:05, The Susan Boyle lookalike crosses her arms and rolls her eyes up and looks at the ceiling while the fat man is making his point.
Time index 3:10, SuBo places both hands on head, looking a lot like a mental patient.
Now I'm not a qualified psychologist, so my opinions on the subject should not be taken as defacto, however it appears strongly that our SuBo here is having mental difficulty dealing with the argument that is happening. She constantly alludes to the old curtseying chestnut, the focus of her argument is not an intellectual or political one, but rather the fact that there is a status difference and she feels inferior. She even says so herself, "I don't want to be a subject, I want to be a citizen".
Now one thing you probably don't know, because you didn't ask, is that I consider the whole bowing and curtseying thing to be utterly abhorrent. There is no way on gods green earth that I would ever take a knee for a Royal. I'd just as soon let myself be RFID chipped, and I would never expect anyone else to bow down either. I think the whole strutting pompous charade, the ridiculous titles and 'honours' they confer on each other are absolutely RIDICULOUS.
EQUALITY IS PARAMOUNT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.
BUT... and it is a big BUT, there has to be a restraining mechanism on the politicians participating in the democratic or they get up to alsorts of corrupt and criminal behaviour which ultimately causes the people to suffer.
The fat guy in the video attempted to tell SuBo that the whole flag waving and tourism thing is the LEAST important thing about monarchy, and he is right it is the least important thing. Subo's focus and thrust of argument is inherently feminine in nature, whilst the fatboy slim was attempting to discuss the political theory (masculine) aspects of the argument.
There is no way what so ever that I would ever subscribe to the notion that a government without a system of oaths and a strong King/Queen to enforce them, will ever result in anything other than the sort of fucked up system we are currently living in here, quite simply because it's utterly naive and simple minded to believe that the wealthiest. The history of the world has proven, Republics seed empires, and true Democracies are inherently unstable because the majority will does not stop to think about what is the best solution, merely what desire it wants satisfying in the immediate here and now.
Someone paid Phony Blair and Gordon Clown to betray us in contravention to the Oaths they took to serve the Queen under the authority of her Oath to serve the people.
400 or so years ago, we the people rose up and screwed that system over by supporting Cromwell, we paved the way for the treasons of today ourselves. If that had not happened, and if the Royals were not utterly toothless, AND we found ourselves in the position we are in, shackled by treaty to the powers of Europe, I would have no problem what so ever endorsing the accusation of Treason against the Royals, but the fact is it's utterly pointless expecting people to do the impossible. And it's utterly retarded to cut our nose off to spite our face and do away with the Monarchy just because our ego's can't stand being subjects instead of citizens.
The priniciple and intention of the system is logically sound, it's just gone off the rails over the centuries because of the ever present human egomania factor, and the way that sycophants suck up to them and are willing to bow and curtsey and shit like that. Personally I think it's time for a rethink of the system, a refreshing back to the core principles.
HVYMTL wrote:Now one thing you probably don't know, because you didn't ask, is that I consider the whole bowing and curtseying thing to be utterly abhorrent.
LOL I couldn't really care less about your view on the curtsey, but your response shows that you believe that others do infact care about what you think.
HVYMTL wrote:EQUALITY IS PARAMOUNT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.
See, its simple Simon - you admit it yourself! Equality is paramount in the eyes of the law. Have they been prosecuted for many incidents of racism? Have they been prosecuted for illegal drug use? Have they been prosecuted for faliure to wear seat belts or failing to have number plates on their cars? Have royalty from long ago been prosecuted for killing their wives? Yet, you support the monarchy and then contradict yourself by saying equality is paramount in the eyes of the law and then you contradict yourself yet again and say:
The priniciple and intention of the system is logically sound
i am sure the Herzogatum Sachsen coburg und gotha (aka lets adopt a castle name of windsor to appeal to the public) family are all shown equality in the eyes of the law... NOT!
HVYMTL wrote:Now I'm not a qualified psychologist, so my opinions on the subject should not be taken as defacto
i didnt think for one slightest moment you are a qualified psychologist. even though i dont agree with most of your opinions i respect them... and wish you'd learn to treat others accordingly! and in that statement, you seem to imply that all your other opinions should be taken as defacto. i've news for you = they are not!
Are you one of those people who has a soft spot for the Queen? NO
Do you think the fact that we still have a crown in this country is a good thing? YES, ABSOLUTELY
Or do you find the monarchy to be a bit of an embarrasment? YES
Do you think this institution has long past it's sell by date? NO
What we have with the monarchy is an institution based on inheritance and exclusive privilege. Indeed, it's fucked
When I look at the monarchy, today, I ask myself, "how can they justify their own existance in these modern times?" They are having a very hard time with that, William and Harry have both expressed that they wish they were just ordinary citizens
Some people say, "oh the monarchy today is just a novelty left over from the past, you know? Their harmless, infact their a great tourist attraction, we hear that a lot, you know?"
They are utterly toothless and bound by the power of parliaments rhetoric, public opinion and the constitution, they represent a broken and malfunctioning system which is falling apart at the seams while they are struggling in their heads to figure out what they are supposed to do about it all, or if they have any right to interfere with the democratic process at all.
Are they harmless though? I'm not happy that we have a hereditary head of state, the fact that we do, flys in the face of the spirit of democracy in my view. I think the british people, we the people, should have the right to choose our own head of state.
A presidential system, like that of America, suffers from the fact that president is partisan and manipulatable by big business interests. The Corporations control America, not the people because America the Republic has already fallen into being America the Empire, just exactly the same way that every Republic that has ever been setup has done over the course of time. Just being able to choose the puppet at the top does not make you free or any more empowered, you still get shafted. A Monarch on the other hand, as history has proven, is far more resilient to manipulation and is able to remain neutral in the political process in a way that a President never can.
The "spirit" of democracy of which he speaks is the spirit of direct democracy aka, communism. The the will of the majority unrestrained and enforced upon the whole. It does not work. Democracy is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that, it is in reality a multi-generational bribery scheme. Sure you can choose by democracy that a new bridge should be built, but then enforcers must confiscate money by force to pay workers to build it. Democracy = force by popular majority.
When it was first implemented it came about as a solution, the idea was that instead of having a physical battle and sticking each other with swords, we would have a "virtual" battle through the ballot box to see who wins and who loses, the side with the larger voting-army being the winner through weight of numbers. It has never been scientific, it has never been able to determine truth or correctness or even if a given idea is even a good one or not, it simply measures desires, and now that we have the age of mass communication and mass propaganda, democracy has become nothing more than a measurement of public gullibility, and susceptibility to propaganda.
It seems to me that the Royal family benefits greatly from Britain's undemocratic constitution.
Our constitution made up of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and other foundational documents, has been recognised by historians as a landmark in the struggle for human rights and freedom. This guy is picking words like "undemocratic" because he thinks democracy is some wonderful high ideal standard, when in reality it has been shown to be anything but. There is a famous quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government that has ever been tried, except for all the others". It sucks and it causes the collapse of civilisation if it is not constitutionally restrained, through class ballot box warfare. I really wish, I honestly really wish that the majority of people were savvy enough, well educated enough and aware of geo-politics and economics enough to make sure that a true pure direct democratic system would always come up with the right result, but that is just not the case. Hitler was elected democratically for crying out loud, that fact should tell you something important about the gullibility of the voting public!
Massive palaces, huge estates, plenty of money, of course, courtesy of the tax payer, this country has given a lot to the windsor family, no doubt.
The Royals were forced to gave up the revenues from all their estates a long time ago, they were reduced from their position by parliament and forced to accept a much smaller income stream from the so called "civil lists". Buckingham palace is in effect, the countries largest Council House. I remember reading somewhere, although I don't have a citation to hand that Prince Harry personally gives over 50% of his income from the civil lists to charities which he has helped to set up and campaigns for. The Royals are no where near as rich or powerful as people generally think they are. As far as I know Prince Williams cottage in Anglesey where he lives with Kate is rented for 750 pounds a month, hardly a luxurious millionaires mansion.
Is it morally defensible to raise one family above all others? I say no.
I agree, it's totally unfair, both on the people who are not raised up, and on the people who are. Most people look at the Royals and see people to be jealous of, look at their life style of the rich and famous, look at the glory of it all... blah blah blah, in reality the Royals have no personal life, they are hounded by the press who report their every move and make a huge stink out of even the smallest gaffe, they are imprisoned in a way that most people will never understand, and they never asked to be there or to be themselves. I can see both sides of the equation and it's a screwed up reality, but unless we can find a way to engineer a checks and balances system of government to keep the political scumbags in check then there is little alternative.
Understand this, I don't want to keep monarchy because I like monarchy, I simply understand that the alternatives are not at all desirable, and that if we could get rid of parliament and adopt a system like they have in Abu Dhabi, sure this one family will have it easy, but the result will be a society which absolutely flourishes. I've never felt so free in my life as I did over there, no council tax, no income tax, just the ruling family, the courts and the police who are not in the slightest bit concerned with revenue collection because they don't need to feed 500 shitbags in suits telling everyone what to do.
What would happen if the monarchy was abolished tomorrow?
Parliament, and it's master Brussels, would have completely unrestrained ability to run roughshod over everyone's rights. The courts and judges would no longer be required to observe their oaths of office, which would multiply the ability of the treasonous scum in parliament to fully integrate us with the communist dicatorship of Europe with no chance of going back or getting out of it. The armed forces would instantly no longer owe alliegence to the crown and the british people the crown is sworn to serve, and would come under the direct control of Brussels by proxy of it's lapdog Parliament. After 1000 years, we would finally and irrevocably be defeated as a nation, and subjugated to napelonic law.
No more common law, no more putting judges on their oath, the country would be divided up into EU provences, and maps which have the names "England", "Wales" and "Scotland" would eventually become illegal to own. Google would be sued to change the names on Google earth, the education system would be made to teach a pro-EU version of history which vilifies the traditions of the UK and of the old system of common law.
Well the Crown is at the heart of our unwritten, and uncodified and undemocratic constitution, so if the crown were to go, then clearly we would need a new constitution. Perhaps with the Crown gone we could have a written, codified and truly democratic constitution, in this country.
Is this guy trying to get himself hired as a member of the EU Parliament? I've heard Mr Camerooon go on about our constituion being "unwritten" and that is so much political bullshit. The Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the act of settlement 1701 are as far as I know the 3 main WRITTEN documents which form the basis for the constitution and law in this country, a constitution which is under attack by the EU, and is being ignored wholesale by Parliament in complete contravention of their Oaths, hence the reason people are once more calling out the word "Treason".
You can't commit treason against a constitution that doesn't exist!
And once again the guy is demonstrating that he believes Democracy to be an ideal standard without understanding the history of the concept, it's volatile nature and the fact that tyranny of the majority is NOT freedom.
Our current constitution is difficult to understand, it seems unnecessarily messy to me, you know.
I would surmise that his difficulty in comprehension comes from the fact that he doesn't understand what a wolf in sheep's clothing Democracy really is, and how our constitution allows for it to partially but not fully exist in our country. As an apparent sufferer of The Democracy Delusion, which shares many similar characteristics of The God Delusion, the whole system of checks and balances would appear to him as unnecessary and messy because he can't comprehend why it's needed and what is wrong with having unrestrained democracy in place. This is ironic because the video title is "Time for a Republic", which shows that he doesn't understand the difference between the two concepts.
For anyone reading who can't understand that distinction either, a Republic is a constitutionally restrained democracy with a partisan president elected periodically. The aim of a Republic is the exact same constraint of the democratic process and protection of individual rights and property rights that is the aim of a Constitutional Monarchy. The only real difference is in that the President has to be elected which means he is subject to the political whims of the people and is therefore unable to execute the role with the same incorruptible neutrality of a hereditary Monarch whose financial position is secure, thus removing temptation for financial gain, and who is constrained to upholding the law upon penalty of being executed for treason if they fail. A Monarch is under far greater pressure than a President, because of that "messy" constitution.
Drawing attention to our current constitution forces us to take a look at the current state of our democracy, I believe. We have the Royal prerogative, which are former Royal powers that allow the prime minister to declare war, and sign treaties, amongst other things without a vote in Parliament.
Gordon Brown had a crack at removing those powers, doubtless under the direction of the EU parliament.
We are already well on our way to becoming a Republic and it's being done so that we can then be subjugated to the new Empire of Europe.
The Royals are unable to prevent this from happening, since they have no power any more. I hope your going to like being a citizen of the Communist Empire of Europe, at least you won't have to bow or curtsey to anyone, that should be some comfort to you while the totalitarian jackboots are stamping on your face.
The very concept of Sovereignty, the notion that you own yourself and your possessions, is being destroyed and when the Monarchy of the United Kingdom which was one of the strongest ever having established the rule of law and the soveriegn individual rights of everyone in the entire commonwealth, the concept may well be dead forever. So much for freedom folks, it was nice while it lasted but as this thread says, "Monarchy has had it's day bye bye".
We have the Crown in Parliament principle, by which parliament can pass any law it likes, the Monarch used to have the power to pass any law he or she liked of course.
As far as I can tell he is talking about Parliaments claim to absolute sovereignty and supremacy, which is something they have been incrementally worming their way towards establishing for hundreds of years by reducing and removing the powers from the Monarch and giving them to themselves.
It's naive to suggest that parliament can pass any law it likes, as many on here are aware, statutes and acts of parliament are not law but written contracts given the force of law by consent of the governed. Parliament must play a game of brinkmanship with it's new 'laws' because if they go too far the result is riots which of course have the potential to form a revolution.
The same goes for an Absolute Monarch who risks having their head cut off if they make laws that piss the people off sufficiently to make it happen, or if those laws irritate the barons into starting a rebellion like the one in 1173 and the one we currently find ourselves in.
And we have the privy council, advisor's to the monarch, mostly made up of senior politicians. The privy council can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.
Once again this guy doesn't know the difference between Law and Legislation, so it's understandable that he sees the privy council as a group of people who are basically dictators able to make everyone do as they say. They are limited by the constitution in their power, just as the Monarch is to matters of legislation which as we all know are only given the force of law by consent. (the matter of people's ignorance and it's exploitation by the elite is a separate issue which I believe ought to be resolved by means of proper education)
Our current constitution is not only messy, it's also very dangerous. I don't like the fact that our parliament can do what it wants without the consent of the people. I don't like the fact that the privy council even exists. And there are lots of other things which give me cause for concern also.
Once again, he doesn't know what we know about the difference between law and legislation. The consitution appears messy to him because he's ignorant of the truth. It's not his fault he's ignorant, we were all ignorant of it until we found out thanks to people like John Harris. The constitution is far from messy, it's an extremely well put together system which works over spans of centuries. The problem is lack of public education on how things really work and why they are put together the way they are.
That leads to the question of why the public are not educated properly, and the answer is a combination of things. First off in the dark middle ages education itself was not widespread. This was partly due to dodgy medieval ideas, partly due to the fact that at that point in history life was a daily struggle with scant resources and there simply wasn't the resources available to educate everyone, and also partly because the jobs that the vast majority of people did, did not require education to complete. Widespread education didn't come along until much later when society was starting to flourish and thus have the resources and need for an educated workforce. Also by that point we had already had the actions of Cromwell and Parliament had become a sort of business which made profit out of ignorance and thus wanted to perpetuate it in so far as it wanted an educated workforce but not a country full of legal experts who know their rights because then it's a lot harder to get away with abusing them and the power and revenue generating ability of Parliament would be severely limited by that.
Once again, the scumbag political class screws everything up for everyone whilst doing everything it can to take more power and resources for itself and it's chums, both from the people and from the Monarch. It's like a cancer eating away at both sides of the equation and exploiting the status divide between the people and their Monarch wherever possible.
Well this is, 2011, maybe it's time for Britain to become a republic, our creaky political system is most definitely in need of some reform, some serious reform in my view. We need some real checks and balances in our system, and we need a good deal more democracy. The people deserve respect, not the crown, we need a constitution which empowers the people not the establishment, you know?
Once again, he doesn't know about the difference between law and legislation and therefore can't possibly understand the checks and balances the system already has in it, and thus concludes that there are none. The system looks like a tyrannical dictatorship in his ignorant eyes. I use the term ignorant not as a disparagement but simply as a statement of fact, he doesn't understand the system and he doesn't like it, so he calls for it to be reformed into a system which he thinks would be better but actually would play directly into the hands of the people who are currently conquering us like they have been trying to do for the last god knows how many hundreds of years.
He also once again affirms that he does not understand that a Republic is no more democratic than a Constitutional Monarchy, whilst being a great deal more manipulatable by big business interests.
Personally I blame the fuckwits in Parliament who decided that a good solid education in law and the constitution of our country was not to be on the currriculum at schools, because if it was then we wouldn't have lots of carbon copy youths like this guy trying to speak up for what they believe is right and actually ending up supporting the future creation of the very tyranny they falsely believe themselves to already be under.
This problem all stems from the days of Cromwell and the way that Parliament has wormed it's way gradually towards absolute sovereignty at the expense of the people and the crown alike, and perpetuated ignorance in the aim of furthering it's own power base and increasing it's ability to defraud the population of revenues.
This chap, like so many others, has been manipulated and actually wants to give the politicians more power when they have already hugely abused the power they already have. He want's more democracy, which will give the big corporations more scope to propagandise the people into supporting what they want, and the result will be the same sort of situation that has fallen on the Americans.
Do you think it's about time we had a referendum on the existence of the Monarchy?
No, I think we should have a referendum on the existence of Parliament.
Shouldn't we be having a serious discussion about this issue, at the very least, you know?
Yes, but such a discussion should be based on facts, reality and history, not vague wishy washy hopes and beliefs in salvation through Democracy, and ignorant miscomprehended views of the constitution and the interplay and structure of power and politics on this island.
I've heard many traditionalist conservative arguments over the years for keeping the crown and I remain thoroughly unconvinced. Many of the traditional arguments are little more than Royalist propaganda actually. I'll finish here by stating that we the people should be the source of political authority in Great Britain, not the Crown, and we really need a constitution which places limits on what our politicians can do. The current constitution is simply not good enough, we deserve much better you know. See you next time folks, peace and take care of yourselves.
Oh, the irony. The people ARE the source of the power and authority in our constitution.
The constitution does place limits on the politicians. Brian Gerrish and co at the British Constitution Group are not idiots! Our constitution is not only good enough, it's the very best constitution the world has ever seen! This lad hates it because he doesn't understand it, he doesn't know what he's wishing for, and if he was to fight in a revolution for what he wants, through his own naivety and ignorance, he would be fighting on the wrong side!
A while back I got very disillusioned with it all and I started to think along nihilist lines. Here's a snapshot of what I was thinking at the time :
llewop wrote:LOL I couldn't really care less about your view on the curtsey, but your response shows that you believe that others do infact care about what you think.
Only in so far as it is needed to understand the position I hold and argument I am making. I care nothing for their judgements since I have absolutely no interest in ever trying to get elected. I'm not a wannabe politician and I couldn't give a shit if every last person on this forum hated my guts and thought I was a fucking loony. I'm here to find out facts and to propagate them and to tackle bullshit.
HVYMTL wrote:EQUALITY IS PARAMOUNT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.
See, its simple Simon - you admit it yourself! Equality is paramount in the eyes of the law.
Yes, that is one of the more important MAXIMS of law, which used to be absolutely uncontestable, but which are now largely ignored by our screwed up unlawful corporate court system.
Here's another one :
THE LAW MAKES THE KING
Back in the day when MAXIMS of law were all you really needed to know, it was very easy to defeat the sort of bullshit lawsuits that routinely get foisted on the unsuspecting public these days. This country has been lawless for over 400 years, all thanks apparently to Cromwell, who didn't merely break the law, he absolutely smashed it to bits.
llewop wrote:Have they been prosecuted for many incidents of racism? Have they been prosecuted for illegal drug use? Have they been prosecuted for faliure to wear seat belts or failing to have number plates on their cars? Have royalty from long ago been prosecuted for killing their wives?
Do you actually understand the difference between law and legislation?
The Royals can no more be prosecuted by their own government than Bill Gates could be disciplined under the rules pertaining to employees of Microsoft Corp, for exactly the same reasons.
I'm not going to get into a long winded explanation of presumptions in law etc here, go and watch Dean Clifford's videos on youtube if you actually want to understand, or don't it's your call .
As for ancient kings killing their wives, that is obviously completely out of order and the result of lots of people failing to enforce the LAW (not legislation) on the King of the time. Primitive barbarity. Of course that also raises up the question of what happened to Lady Diana. I don't know, but obviously the law requires that we presume innocence until guilt is proven, and since the importance of the rule of law is something I believe we actually agree on I guess you will have to agree that all of it's principles should be adhered to fully, and indeed must be if we are ever to get out of the mess we are in.
Yet, you support the monarchy and then contradict yourself by saying equality is paramount in the eyes of the law and then you contradict yourself yet again and say:
The priniciple and intention of the system is logically sound
I did not contradict myself, your making it up again. Honestly dealing with you and the way you constantly twist things around is making my head spin. I support the law, I support the British Constitution which is being destroyed by actions of treason as our politicians sell us out to the powers of Europe. I support our traditions, and I support the dissolving of parliament entirely and the return to absolute monarchism because I've spent time in an absolute monarchy and it was a fantastic place to be. No income tax, no council tax, no stupid revenue collecting laws, I've never felt so free in my life as I did in that place.
llewop wrote:i am sure the Herzogatum Sachsen coburg und gotha (aka lets adopt a castle name of windsor to appeal to the public) family are all shown equality in the eyes of the law... NOT!
Good one, Garth...
HVYMTL wrote:Now I'm not a qualified psychologist, so my opinions on the subject should not be taken as defacto
i didnt think for one slightest moment you are a qualified psychologist. even though i dont agree with most of your opinions i respect them... and wish you'd learn to treat others accordingly![/quote]
I do, right up until the point where they, as you did, fail to reciprocate the open acceptance and courtesy I automatically and totally naturally give to just about everyone I ever meet.