# The unrebellious English



## Fleurs263

'Tis Guy Fawkes Night tomorrow and ...gunpowder, treason and plot ...

Just interested in opinions concerning why the English fail to revolt or rebel ... still have a monarchy, no constitution etc  I appreciate we march against policies from time to time, but given how the Government ignored the last major march against the war in Iraq, what are the possibities if this type of political behaviour continues?


----------



## invictaspirit

Name an Iraq coalition country where there has been a rebellion/insurrection against that country's involvement in Iraq. Choices include Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, the USA.

Cost to the British tax-payer of maintaining the entire monarchy: £36 million a year.

Cost to the French tax-payer of maintaining Jacques Chirac's office: £74 million a year.

I read a _Le Monde_ article a couple of months ago. They were questionning the vast un-audited sums available to the French presidency (the money is simply handed over to the Elysees palace and never accounted, made public or questioned. Mitterand used to send his chef in the official presidential jet to Brittany to get fresh oysters for lunch, as an example.) The article compared this budget with the Queen's, which is fully audited, itemised and available to parliamentary and public scrutiny.

The British monarchy costs every Brit the equivalent of a pint of milk per year. Man the barricades!!


----------



## Fleurs263

Weeeell, if that hasn't gone and smashed my idealistic view of the French as torch bearers for liberty, fraternity etc ... Please don't tell me that the American Constitution isn't worth the old parchment it was written on ... and I will never buy a pint of milk again!


----------



## cuchuflete

Fleurs263 said:


> 'Tis Guy Fawkes Night tomorrow and ...gunpowder, treason and plot ...
> 
> Just interested in opinions concerning why the English fail to revolt or rebel ... still have a monarchy, no constitution etc  I appreciate we march against policies from time to time, but given how the Government ignored the last major march against the war in Iraq, what are the possibities if this type of political behaviour continues?



Hi Fleurs,
I understand that you do have a constitution, but that you haven't gotten around to committing it to writing in its entirety.  That's probably a good thing, as over here we have a Supreme Court to interpret ours, and they tend to change their collective mind every few decades.  It keeps the legal publishers busy making money, and provides gainful (?¿) employment to some disreputable characters, but it's no more wise or sane than your own legal traditions...just different.

We have had lots of marches and protests against the current regime, but none has been effective yet.  Tuesday we will march to the ballot boxes, and see what we can do quietly.

The last time I participated in an 'effective' public protest march was about 1970.


----------



## invictaspirit

My slightly more serious answer would be that the English are fond of evolutionary change (the 11-year republic that was spawned by the Civil War aside, when they probably considered a harder shove was necessary) and are even more fond of being individuals and/or eccentric.

As long as they are allowed to have green hair, twelve facial piercings, put coats on poodles, have 3 holidays abroad a year and read the papers on a Sunday morning, and as long as the monarchy never actually makes them do anything they don;t want to do, they will not clamour for a republic nor object in serious numbers to DNA databases and hundreds of security cameras in their (relatively) peaceful and law-abiding towns.

I'd cite the 1990 Poll Tax riot as an example of successful rebellious action against a government policy too far, though. I would argue that it was an example of English public disorder that actually changed a highly unpopular government policy.


----------



## Gez

Fleurs263 said:


> Weeeell, if that hasn't gone and smashed my idealistic view of the French as torch bearers for liberty, fraternity etc ...



It's not a question of liberty or fraternity. It's a question of lack of transparency allowing corruption in the institutions of power.


The British don't rebel against their monarchy because they have no reason to. The Queen or King doesn't have much real power anymore, they're mostly a figurehead.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing to have, a stable figurehead. Bagehot wrote interesting things on that topic, saying a government needs both efficient parts that have the power and use it, and dignified parts that gets the power and give it to the efficient part. The God-saved Queen has that dignified role, not doing much on their own, but confering legitimacy to the actual government.

That said, I don't see much in that thread about questions of translation.


----------



## Fleurs263

The Queen is the head of an Establishment which will at all costs, maintain the status quo. A status quo which ensures we do not live in a "classless society".  There is enough literature 'out there' which could provide all types of people with equality of opportunity and a healthy and positive lifestyle.  However, the social change which is required for this to become effective, is constantly undermined and ridiculed.   It is apparent to me that we have entered an age where there is no room for policies which bring about true equality.  36 hours of one person's life is surely equal to another's. 
The Royal Family for me, continue to represent an antiquated system of subserviance and have no place in the evolution of man.  The idea of curtseying, for example to another human being, I regard as absurd. 
To go back to the original idea ... I believe that the English are in fact, on the whole, a tolerant people who have a fair sense of justice and who want peace. The Establishment has insured that the little power the people had, has been removed.  Even Margaret Thatcher would have taken notice of 1 million people marching against the war, wouldn't she?
I understand she made a statement, to the effect that her greatest achievement was Tony Blair.  Personally, I wish we'd just rebel against the Government for the minute, then perhaps Governments in the future won't be so arrogant.
Our Government has complete control over the media and how this country will move forward.  New Labour is part of the Establishment and that is frightening.


----------



## maxiogee

Fleurs263 said:


> Even Margaret Thatcher would have taken notice of 1 million people marching against the war, wouldn't she?


I find it hard to believe that you have any way of backing up that assertion. This was a lady who was famously "not for turning"!


----------



## sound shift

Well, there would be no point in a Guy Fawkes 2006-style, because nothing happens in the House of Commons any more.


----------



## Fleurs263

Well no I don't! And let me state right now, I detested the woman with a passion; but, she was forced to 'turn' after the Poll Tax riots, even if it was only 180 degrees!  At the time she had an opposition and the Conservatives were frightened of losing power.  Tony Blair has had little opposition and has managed to bring policies into being, of  which the likes of Thatcher, Hurd and Howard could only dream.  New Labour has become Conservatism and the Estabishment has managed to shift English politics to the right, without a fight.  When Michael Howard sat in Parliament to question an immigration policy, the New Labour Government were trying to implement,  we were all doooomed, dooomed I say ...


----------



## invictaspirit

Fleurs263 said:


> The Queen is the head of an Establishment which will at all costs, maintain the status quo. A status quo which ensures we do not live in a "classless society". There is enough literature 'out there' which could provide all types of people with equality of opportunity and a healthy and positive lifestyle. However, the social change which is required for this to become effective, is constantly undermined and ridiculed. It is apparent to me that we have entered an age where there is no room for policies which bring about true equality. 36 hours of one person's life is surely equal to another's.
> The Royal Family for me, continue to represent an antiquated system of subserviance and have no place in the evolution of man. The idea of curtseying, for example to another human being, I regard as absurd.
> To go back to the original idea ... I believe that the English are in fact, on the whole, a tolerant people who have a fair sense of justice and who want peace. The Establishment has insured that the little power the people had, has been removed. Even Margaret Thatcher would have taken notice of 1 million people marching against the war, wouldn't she?
> I understand she made a statement, to the effect that her greatest achievement was Tony Blair. Personally, I wish we'd just rebel against the Government for the minute, then perhaps Governments in the future won't be so arrogant.
> Our Government has complete control over the media and how this country will move forward. New Labour is part of the Establishment and that is frightening.


 
Actually it was 3 million. And no she wouldn't. Although some of her ministers and civil servants took notice of the uprising against Poll Tax and it was a contributory factor to the unhinged old bag's ousting.

If you think the government has 'complete control over the media', you are clearly not reading the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, Daily Express or Telegraph, neither are you listening to 'Today', several Radio 4 and 5Live programmes, Talk-Sports, nor are you watching SKY News, ITV News, 'Newsnight', or 'Panorama'...all of which, I imagine, must be a royal pain the arse to the government's press offices and media people.

You are, I presume, aware that at least half the opposition to Blair is from people who think that he is not conservative enough? Who exactly is going to populate this rebellion for 'more equality'?


----------



## la reine victoria

Fleurs263 said:


> 'Tis Guy Fawkes Night tomorrow and ...gunpowder, treason and plot ...
> 
> Just interested in opinions concerning why the English fail to revolt or rebel ... still have a monarchy, no constitution etc I appreciate we march against policies from time to time, but given how the Government ignored the last major march against the war in Iraq, what are the possibities if this type of political behaviour continues?


 


Why dispense with the monarchy? Would you rather we had a president? Blair, for example, who already behaves as though he were President Blair. 

The monarchy, despite what you may think, is still popular with the majority of Brits.

Our present Queen has been a model Head of State for over 50 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for rebellion, I don't believe it is in the British character to be rebellious. Demonstrations and marches are all very well but they are completely ignored by the politicians.

The very idea of "storming 10 Downing Street" and ousting Blair, or attempting to "blow up the Houses of Parliament" as Guy Fawkes did, is risible. Security surrounding the Prime Minister and the Seat of Government is greater than that given to the Queen.

What purpose would it serve?

No, we will continue to complain about yet more stealth taxes, the proposed increase in Council Tax if you live in a "nice" area, or if you have a pleasant view from your window, failing schools, filthy hospitals, child abuse, neglect and abuse of the elderly, detaining the mentally ill in prisons, the anti-social behaviour of our youth, the pathetically short prison sentences handed out by our judges for dreadful crimes, support for the thief who breaks into your home; if you crack him over the head with a heavy object he is able to sue you for assault, etc. etc. etc.

But rebel - never.

Rule Britannia!
Land of Hope and Glory.




LRV


----------



## invictaspirit

la reine victoria said:


> Why dispense with the monarchy? Would you rather we had a president? Blair, for example, who already behaves as though he were President Blair.
> 
> The monarchy, despite what you may think, is still popular with the majority of Brits.
> 
> Our present Queen has been a model Head of State for over 50 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> As for rebellion, I don't believe it is in the British character to be rebellious. Demonstrations and marches are all very well but they are completely ignored by the politicians.
> 
> The very idea of "storming 10 Downing Street" and ousting Blair, or attempting to "blow up the Houses of Parliament" as Guy Fawkes did, is risible. Security surrounding the Prime Minister and the Seat of Government is greater than that given to the Queen.
> 
> What purpose would it serve?
> 
> No, we will continue to complain about yet more stealth taxes, the proposed increase in Council Tax if you live in a "nice" area, or if you have a pleasant view from your window, failing schools, filthy hospitals, child abuse, neglect and abuse of the elderly, detaining the mentally ill in prisons, the anti-social behaviour of our youth, the pathetically short prison sentences handed out by our judges for dreadful crimes, support for the thief who breaks into your home; if you crack him over the head with a heavy object - he is able to sue you for assault, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> But rebel - never.
> 
> Rule Britannia!
> Land of Hope and Glory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
Land of Hope and Glory? You make it sound disgusting. Where on _earth_ do you live? It sounds like Tower Hamlets. None of these things are happening where I live. I'm reasoably happy with the monarchy and am pretty happy with my life and the country and society around it. I can't believe that I am _that_ unusual...I live in a very modest, middle-range commuter town in Kent. You can't get more normal than that!

I've spent most of 2006 either getting corrective cardiac surgery or taking my wife in and out of Maidstone General for regular pregnancy check-ups and/or the birth of our son...in all instances involving ultra-modern, clean and expert healthcare.

Bloody Brits...they love a whinge!


----------



## la reine victoria

> *Fleurs263*
> The idea of curtseying, for example to another human being, I regard as absurd.


 


Declared by Her Majesty, a few years ago, as no longer required.





LRV


----------



## Fleurs263

To invinctaspirit ... what was 3 million? 
To be honest I'm more likely to spend my money on the "Morning Star".  
And how do you know which articles appear and which are rejected?  To allow criticism of your Government when you have complete control is nothing .... to create crap and then allow people to talk about it is control ... !


----------



## emma42

No, Thatcher would have taken no notice.  Also, I disagree that the government has complete control over the media.  However, I totally agree with the rest of your post #7, Fleurs.  I am heartily sick of hearing that there is no class system any more.


----------



## la reine victoria

invictaspirit said:


> Land of Hope and Glory? You make it sound disgusting. Where on earth do you live? It sounds like Tower Hamlets. None of these things are happening where I live. I'm reasoably happy with the monarchy and am pretty happy with my life and the country and society around it. I can;t believe that I am that unusual...I live in a very modest, middle-range commuter town in Kent. You can't get more normal than that!


 

No use having a go at one, Invictaspirit.

My comments were general ones about the state of Britain today. Do you never listen to the news, watch Question Time, Panorama and the like?

"Land of Hope and Glory" was facetious despair - a reference to the famous song.

My abode couldn't be further than the squalor of Tower Hamlets. I live in a charming rural village (one shop, one post office), in an area of outstanding natural beauty, on the Isle of Wight. A river runs alongside my 1856 stone-built cottage. The area is crime free; this is probably one of the last places where you can truly go out and not worry about locking your door.

You seem to imply that I dislike the monarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an ardent monarchist who weeps tears of pride on state occasions. Am I unusual? Very. God broke the mould after he'd made me.

Open your eyes and ears and see and hear exactly what is going on in today's Britain under this ghastly government. Think of the thousands of idle so-and-sos who sit around refusing to work - all very happy to live on hand-outs from tax payers' money. Think of inner city decay, drunken mobs of youngsters fighting in the streets and wasting the time of the police and casualty departments, the teenage pregnancy rate (the highest in Europe), drug addiction, gun and knife crime, racially motivated killings of young people by the young, mugging of the elderly. . . . need I go on?

I've always admired you and am surprised at your response to my post.




LRV


----------



## invictaspirit

Fleurs263 said:


> To invinctaspirit ... what was 3 million?
> To be honest I'm more likely to spend my money on the "Morning Star".
> And how do you know which articles appear and which are rejected? To allow criticism of your Government when you have complete control is nothing .... to create crap and then allow people to talk about it is control ... !


 
Oh for goodness sake, you're a communist!  

Mate...wake up! We're *not* all equal. And hardly anyone wants to live in a society that renders them such. Some people are absolutely, clearly more talented and more worthy than others. And although you may be a fantasticallly intelligent and broad-minded person, most communists I have known are numbered among the worst and most horrendous bigots I ahve ever met.

How do I know which articles appear and which are rejected... I read articles bitterly critical of the government that appear and are not rejected. I also talk frequently to close friends and family who work in the news media, some of whom set aspects the news agenda to which you refer; an unlikelier bunch of people to be pushed around by the government or mindlessly spout government-approved drivel you would be hard pressed to meet.

Relax! Everything is more or less OK, honest.

3 million was the number of marchers on the anti-war demo before Iraq kicked off.  I may have misunderstood, but thought you were talking about that march.


----------



## Fleurs263

To la reine Victoria,
Never said the monarchy was unpopular with the British public, but since you've mentioned it nip down to some of the less surburban parts of London for example and see what people think.
To invictaspirit,
If you live in Tower Hamlets is that not normal?  And I think it's great that Maidstone General is up to scratch .... let's hope it continues, along with 
the rest of the NHS,  to be accessible to all without insurance. (Parts of the media have recently been presenting the idea that without insurance you will not get treated immediately ... this is active promotion of an idea which will lead to a policy ...(the idea that you need to buy health insurance to ensure treatment ....)  This is how the media is manipulated, by using a story told by a normal person .... ...


----------



## Fleurs263

Hi invictaspirit ... you're making assumptions ...!!! Never said I was a communist! 
Now I distinctly remember being told by the media it was one million, but thanks ..... 3 million even worse.  
Listen I appreciate what you're saying, but life isn't hunky dorey for many people and I guess I just don't understand how that can be acceptable in the country I love.  
 I think a fundamental difference which we will not agree upon, is that people are equal.  In society, no we're not.  But people are born equal and  equal  opportunity should be given to all.  
And are you taking the mickey or patronising me by telling me to calm down?  I'm not even off the starting blocks yet .....!!


----------



## la reine victoria

*




Invictaspirit
I've spent most of 2006 either getting corrective cardiac surgery or taking my wife in and out of Maidstone General for regular pregnancy check-ups and/or the birth of our son...in all instances involving ultra-modern, clean and expert healthcare.

Bloody Brits...they love a whinge!


Click to expand...

 

I see you have edited your post by adding the above.

I trust that your cardiac surgery has been a total success and wish you good health for the future.

You are fortunate to have found a clean hospital in Maidstone (a place I know well). But surely you are aware of the deaths from MRSA in hospitals where hygiene has been wanting, to say the least. My late husband contracted it and he hadn't even had a surgical procedure. It made him extremely ill and prevented me from seeing him until his blood tests proved negative.

Yes, bloody Brits do love a whinge - it seems to be a national pastime. Since you are one yourself, why not let rip and have a good whinge too.

Generally I refrain from whingeing, I merely comment on what I know is happening, to Britain's detriment.




LRV 
*


----------



## emma42

Invictaspirit, everything may be "more or less ok" for a (small?) majority, but it is not for many, particularly in deprived areas like Tower Hamlets.  You may "relax", but there are many who cannot.


----------



## invictaspirit

la reine victoria said:


> No use having a go at one, Invictaspirit.
> 
> My comments were general ones about the state of Britain today. Do you never listen to the news, watch Question Time, Panorama and the like?
> 
> "Land of Hope and Glory" was facetious despair - a reference to the famous song.
> 
> My abode couldn't be further than the squalor of Tower Hamlets. I live in a charming rural village (one shop, one post office), in an area of outstanding natural beauty, on the Isle of Wight. A river runs alongside my 1856 stone-built cottage. The area is crime free; this is probably one of the last places where you can truly go out and not worry about locking your door.
> 
> You seem to imply that I dislike the monarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an ardent monarchist who weeps tears of pride on state occasions. Am I unusual? Very. God broke the mould after he'd made me.
> 
> Open your eyes and ears and see and hear exactly what is going on in today's Britain under this ghastly government. Think of the thousands of idle so-and-sos who sit around refusing to work - all very happy to live on hand-outs from tax payers' money. Think of inner city decay, drunken mobs of youngsters fighting in the streets and wasting the time of the police and casualty departments, the teenage pregnancy rate (the highest in Europe), drug addiction, gun and knife crime, racially motivated killings of young people by the young, mugging of the elderly. . . . need I go on?
> 
> I've always admired you and am surprised at your response to my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
I'm sorry, I find your last two posts quite extraordinary.

You live in the middle of nowhere yet feel entirely free to pontificate on the state of a nation you see on television. (Yes, I do watch Panorama, for goodness sake, but I also *live* here.)

I too live in a beautiful, crime-free peaceful village, on the fringes of a large town of 120,000 people that is less than 40 miles from Central London. The Britain I live in is not without its problems....like any country.

Inner-city decay: my wife and I spend large amounts of time and money visiting Britain's 'inner cities'. London, of course. This year also Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow. The cities I see are busting with interesting shops, museums, new buildings, revitalised city-centres, massive retail and entertainment development...a very far cry from the grey, jobless ruins of the Thatcher era.

Let me continue. My local town has *negative* unemployment. That means that we can't fill all of our jobs, we have more jonbs than people, and have to adverstise for them in Poland, Australia and the Czech Republic. I don't remember _that_ happening until recently, do you? It was more like 3 million on the dole.

I am a senior manager at a secondary school in Kent. The picture you paint of Britain's youth is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I deal with, mainly, talented and enthusiastic youngsters who are a credit to their community. In the last week I have tearfully accepted the admission to Cambridge of a girl whose parents are a steel-worker and a cleaner at our school and I have driven 14 fifteen year olds to a Millenium Volunteers award ceremony at UKC in Canterbury where they were publicly praised for a vast array of excellent community work over 2005-2006....some of them wear hoodies at weekends by the way. The reality of my job involves sometimes mediating in silly, teenage spats and unreasonable behaviour, but generally being very impressed by the ambition and skills I see before me in the youth of the area in which I teach.

What else: Brits have always drunk heavily. So do other North Europeans. The Irsh spring to mind. Sometimes it creates problems but mostly it is boisterous high spirits. If you want to see really disgusting binge-drinking, go to Finland, Iceland, Poland, the odd town in Germany, very occasionally the US, Australia and Canada. It'd make a chav blish, believe me. A mate is a police sergeant in Maidstone. Alcohol-related trouble has plummeted since the re-working of licensing laws.

Drug addiction and knife and gun crime in the UK are among the lowest in the Western world...in each case hugely worse in the US, Australia and most of our EU neighbours.

I can't disagree with your comment on teenage pregnancy...lamentable to be sure. But then I am not trying to make out the UK is a paradise, just counter your daft picture of it as a hell-hole.

By your own admission, you live in a delightful part of the UK. Well, excuse me madam, but in my opinion, so do I. This happy coincidence leads me to suspect that other people we donlt know also feel the same.

I'm glad we both have respect and fondness for the monarchy...I never doubted yours by the way. I don't know where you got that idea.

I'm not sure why you say you always admired me, as I have never posted very much here and I wonder if you think I am someone else. I am sorry to have let you down, and thank you for your former support, but I am a happy person who enjoys life and enjoys a lot of what I see around me. I in no way recognise the vile picture of our country you paint and am quite pleased to joyfully call you out on some of it.

You read the Daily Mail, by the way. 

I wish you well, very well.


----------



## Fleurs263

Hey Invictaspirit and la reine victoria ... Fleurs here ... I live in a crap part of England, tell me what's life like for you two ....!!!!???


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Fleurs,
I need help understanding why the Monarchy contributes to some parts of England being "crap".   I am no monarchist.  We had it out with George III a while back.  Eliz. II seems like a very pleasant anachronism, while her offspring give lots of proof that even Princes put their pants on one leg at a time.

If you were to ditch the monarchy, do you believe that this would somehow, directly or indirectly, eliminate the class system, solve problems of poverty and crime, and turn all of England into a pastoral paradise?

If things are as you paint them, why don't the English abandon the (sorry to say it, but it's true...American style) one party system, with both major parties fighting for the center-right?


----------



## la reine victoria

emma42 said:


> Invictaspirit, everything may be "more or less ok" for a (small?) majority, but it is not for many, particularly in deprived areas like Tower Hamlets. You may "relax", but there are many who cannot.


 



I agree with you Emma. 

I count my blessings every day when I look at the beauty of my village and its surroundings. But I am only here through my late husband's hard work. For the people in areas of deprivation, who are struggling to know where the next meal is coming from, or how they can possibly buy new shoes for their chidren (and this is not an exaggeration) I feel great sympathy.

Invictaspirit: I recall in one of your posts about European taxation you stated the combined income of you and your wife was $160,000 per annum. I'm sure you work very hard for this and good luck to you - but please don't look down in scorn on the people of Tower Hamlets and other deprived areas. It's really not very kind. 





LRV


----------



## invictaspirit

Fleurs263 said:


> Hi invictaspirit ... you're making assumptions ...!!! Never said I was a communist!
> Now I distinctly remember being told by the media it was one million, but thanks ..... 3 million even worse.
> Listen I appreciate what you're saying, but life isn't hunky dorey for many people and I guess I just don't understand how that can be acceptable in the country I love.
> I think a fundamental difference which we will not agree upon, is that people are equal. In society, no we're not. But people are born equal and equal opportunity should be given to all.
> And are you taking the mickey or patronising me by telling me to calm down? I'm not even off the starting blocks yet .....!!


 
Oh no, I'm sure you can get more passionate, no worries!  

I have some insight, though you might regard it as limited, by being a secondary school teacher in a fairly deprived area. I work with people who, for the most part, start with bugger all. I see many of them working incredibly hard, and being full of drive, and going on to high things...sometimes very high. It is not an exageration to say I have sent kids from horrendous council esates to Oxbridge and other fine universities. Others remain slack-jawed chavs. I am quite firmly of the belief that you either choose or do not choose to deal the shitty cards life has dealt you.

Britain does provide its youth with equality of opportunity. But they have to take it; that's a personal, individual decision...no sociology involved. A few years ago I taught a boy whose mother was wheel-chair-bound with MS and whose father committed suicide by hanging himself from the bathroom light-fitting. They lived on one of the most unpleasant council estates in Sussex. This boy had absolutely nothing going for him apart from some residual intelligence and a great deal of drive. He is now on the verge of being a corporate lawyer. Yes, he has some pretty hefty student debt, yes it was a struggle.

Don't make me think you are the sort of person who would better admire his more intelligent but less responsible twat ex-best mate who sat next to him in class who got a wharehouse jon at B&Q and is now in prison for beating up his neighbour.

No man is an island, to be sure, But please believe we ourselves, and only ourselves, play the greatest hand in who we are. I wouldn't be a teacher if I didn't believe in civil society and collective endeavor. I'm not a bad man. But heck...we most certainly not all equal. If you enjoy reading the Morning Star, you will need to be reminded of this. It is not the sort of newspaper that allows the unpalatable truth that some of us are simply more able, more responsible, more talented and more driven than others to pollute the consciousness of its readers.


----------



## emma42

Dear Cuchuflete, Fleurs said that the royal family "continue to represent an antiquated system of subservience", by which I understand she thinks it is _symbol _of a class-ridden and unfair society.  I did not understand her to be saying that the Windsors were much of a problem in themselves (among themselves, perhaps!), apart from to those unfortunates who receive a royal visit when recovering in hospital from their piles operations.


----------



## invictaspirit

la reine victoria said:


> I agree with you Emma.
> 
> I count my blessings every day when I look at the beauty of my village and its surroundings. But I am only here through my late husband's hard work. For the people in areas of deprivation, who are struggling to know where the next meal is coming from, or how they can possibly buy new shoes for their chidren (and this is not an exaggeration) I feel great sympathy.
> 
> Invictaspirit: I recall in one of your posts about European taxation you stated the combined income of you of your wife was $160,000 per annum. I'm sure you work very hard for this and good luck to you - but please don't look down in scorn on the people of Tower Hamlets and other deprived areas. It's really not very kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
I will personally buy new shoes for any child legally resident in the United Kingdom whose parents can genuinely not afford to buy him or her new shoes.

For goodness sake...LOL...I bet they can afford SKY and a PlayStation though.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Invictaspirit
> I'm not sure whjy you say you always admired me, as I ahve never posted very much here and I wonder if you think I am someone else. I am sorry to have let you down, and thank you for your former support, but I am a happy person who enjoys life and enjoys a lot of what I see around me. I in no way recognise the vile picture of our country you paint and am quite pleased to joyfully call you out on some of it.
> 
> You read the Daily Mail, by the way.
> 
> I wish you well, very well.


 

With 149 posts to your name I've always read them and admired them.  I certainly am not confusing you with another forero.  You may recall I congratulated you on the birth of Daniel (a fine name, by the way - I have one of my own). 

You haven't let me down at all - just written some posts in this thread which make one believe that everything in Britain is hunky-dorey, when clearly it is not.

I certainly don't read the Daily Mail.  I used to read the Telegraph every day but have now abandoned newspapers as a waste of time and money.  I can read the main articles of interest online for free if I choose.



LRV


----------



## Fleurs263

Hi chuchuflete,
Without looking back at what's been written I didn't mean to imply, if I did, that the Monarchy we have is responsible for the state of our politics; however, I'm no monarchist and the monarchy, to me, represents the inequality in our system. I'm not sure if not having a monarchy would make a difference ... there was the idea that having the queen around in the Thatcher years kept her in check somehow, but if that was the case, it doen't work now with Blair.
I like the idea of a Constitution by the people for the people ... all people.  We live in a muliticultural society and our "culture" has changed. (I'm thinking now that many people may not live so muti-culturally in England...).
I do believe that the elimination of a system based on monarchy and aristocracy would change things .... maybe not for several generations, but the psyche of the Nation would have to change.  Parts  of English life surround the concept of superiority and "your betters" ... or alienation/
differences between classes ... 
There is an inherent inequality which leads to bigotry and injustice.  I really don't understand how an enlightened, modern society can run on the lines of such differences between experiences.  For example how can it be right that some children can leave Junior school unable to write a sentence properly, whilst others have already been introduced/taught Greek Mythology.
I find it quite offensive that there is then an implication that there exists a genetic difference in intelligence, when the difference is opportunity or lack of it.


----------



## emma42

invictaspirit, are you actually claiming that there is no poverty in England?  The Child Poverty Action Group's figures say that two million children (legally resident) live in poverty.  A couple on Income Support with two children, receive about £163 a week.  How much do you spend on your children's shoes, I wonder?


----------



## invictaspirit

la reine victoria said:


> With 149 posts to your name I've always read them and admired them. I certainly am not confusing you with another forero. You may recall I congratulated you on the birth of Daniel (a fine name, by the way - I have one of my own).
> 
> You haven't let me down at all - just written some posts in this thread which make one believe that everything in Britain is hunky-dorey, when clearly it is not.
> 
> I certainly don't read the Daily Mail. I used to read the Telegraph every day but have now abandoned newspapers as a waste of time and money. I can read the main articles of interest online for free if I choose.
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
Well, I thank you warmly for your kind comments and send greetings and love to your own Daniel, but still profoundly disagree with your comments on this thread.

Much the opposite.  I do not make out Britain is hunky-dorey.  First off, it isn't.  Secondly, no country is.  I merely counter your assertion that it is in a state of dismal collapse.  I strongly disagree.  I think it is in a better state that at any time since around 1969.  Economically speaking this is indisputable.

Also, I am certainly *not* a person of wealth or priviledge.  Like a lot of people, I have worked my way up from very little and have reached the giddy heights of....secondary school teacher married to a secondary school teacher.  I'm doing OK but have hardly joined the complacent rich.    My origins, my job and my current life do, however make me fel qualified to comment on the state of the UK.  It would be worrying if any citizen anywhere was entirely happy with their country.  I would suspect drug-use.  But I am happy enough and still do not recognise the picture you paint.  I live in semi-metropolitan Kent...not Virginia Water or Sunningdale or Egham.  You couldnt get more hum-drum than us.  And I think it's not that bad.  Sorry.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Invictaspirit
> But please believe we ourselves, and only ourselves, play the greatest hand in who we are.


 


I have to disagree with this.  Some of us are born with greater intelligence than others.  I have worked with children at school.  The less intelligent are generally left to cope as best they can while the intelligent children (who are highly favoured by the teaching staff) are encouraged to work even harder.

Intelligent children usually have parents who are far more supportive, too.  They encourage and even "push" their children to be high achievers.

I was one of the lucky ones - encouraged by teachers and my parents, but never "pushed".  Being the youngest of 4 children, the other three of whom had all done extremely well academically, I was aware that I had a standard to uphold.  It was something I wanted to do, of my own volition.





LRV


----------



## invictaspirit

emma42 said:


> invictaspirit, are you actually claiming that there is no poverty in England? The Child Poverty Action Group's figures say that two million children (legally resident) live in poverty. A couple on Income Support with two children, receive about £163 a week. How much do you spend on your children's shoes, I wonder?


 
Poverty is an exceptionally mutable and relative term.

In the UK, a person officially lives in poverty (this is where the CPAG's stats come from) if their family income is 60% of the average family income which is, for the internationally minded, $56,000 a year. This means that you are officially poor if your family income drops below $33,600 a year.

Now to be fair, $33,600 a year is a crappy family income. But you can still afford to buy shoes! In world terms, British poverty at $33,599 a year is a joke. It isn't poverty at all.

It is a nonsensical assertion that any Briton can not afford to buy shoes for their kids. The minimum wage is £5.35 an hour. That's about $10. A single parent working full or part time will be topped up (on top of their $10 an hour income) with tax credits, child benefits and possibly other welfare.

Child benefit alone is $130 as month. You get that whatever your circumstanes, on top of all the other benefits.

It is simply not true that any Briton can not afford to by shoes for their kid. They may choose not to of course.

Who is this couple anyway?  They don't exist.  Why doesn't at least one of them work?  Britain has the second highest percentage of people in work in the developed world.  Many towns have a shortage of workers, not work.  Maybe both are ill...so you have forgotten to calculate sickness benefit.  Tax credits?  Housing benefit?  No couple with kids lives on £163 a week.


----------



## Fleurs263

Hi Invictaspirit, wish I could insert a smiley here, but can't get it together ... however, with reference to equality of opportunity I can say from personal experience, there are places where it does not exist or perhaps I should say is thwarted .... I educate my daughters at home and this was never my choice.  I was informed by the headteacher of my daughter's first infant school, that the school had had bad results because most of the kids came from single parent families or families who were unemployed or had problems ..... His attitude was therefore destined to produce "bad" results.  He has since moved on to a non teaching position in  .... Thank God. We were talking about five year olds.
Now, if children have different home lives and therefore different knowledge and experiences, surely it is the responsibility of the school to ensure that each child has access to knowledge, that each child is offered opportunity.  Starting  with the idea of failure will lead to failure.  I saw this particular man in action and his attitude was awful and he brought about his own "prophesy/idea" by his behaviour and approach.
I understand that some students will work harder and on the surface maybe the two students had the same experiences, but my experience in the world of social services/therapy tells me there's more to it than that ... and whileI have been frustrated on occasion at what I have thought of as wasted time, I guess until you've walked in some one else's shoes ....(and now I would insert the smiley and wish you well and thank you for the discussions .... I'm already revising my opinion on the media! I think I failed to take all of the media into consideration, when I made that comment .... but we live and learn.)


----------



## invictaspirit

la reine victoria said:


> I have to disagree with this. Some of us are born with greater intelligence than others. I have worked with children at school. The less intelligent are generally left to cope as best they can while the intelligent children (who are highly favoured by the teaching staff) are encouraged to work even harder.
> 
> Intelligent children usually have parents who are far more supportive, too. They encourage and even "push" their children to be high achievers.
> 
> I was one of the lucky ones - encouraged by teachers and my parents, but never "pushed". Being the youngest of 4 children, the other three of whom had all done extremely well academically, I was aware that I had a standard to uphold. It was something I wanted to do, of my own volition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
Are you saying unintelligent people should do the same jobs and rise as high as intelligent people?

Incase you are...why?

I say again...we are what we ourselves can make of our lives.  If you have the misfortune to be unintelligent, you are not going to go as far as someone who is.  This is nobody's fault...it's just life.  We are not all the same.  We are different.


----------



## invictaspirit

Fleurs263 said:


> Hi Invictaspirit, wish I could insert a smiley here, but can't get it together ... however, with reference to equality of opportunity I can say from personal experience, there are places where it does not exist or perhaps I should say is thwarted .... I educate my daughters at home and this was never my choice. I was informed by the headteacher of my daughter's first infant school, that the school had had bad results because most of the kids came from single parent families or families who were unemployed or had problems ..... His attitude was therefore destined to produce "bad" results. He has since moved on to a non teaching position in .... Thank God. We were talking about five year olds.
> Now, if children have different home lives and therefore different knowledge and experiences, surely it is the responsibility of the school to ensure that each child has access to knowledge, that each child is offered opportunity. Starting with the idea of failure will lead to failure. I saw this particular man in action and his attitude was awful and he brought about his own "prophesy/idea" by his behaviour and approach.
> I understand that some students will work harder and on the surface maybe the two students had the same experiences, but my experience in the world of social services/therapy tells me there's more to it than that ... and whileI have been frustrated on occasion at what I have thought of as wasted time, I guess until you've walked in some one else's shoes ....(and now I would insert the smiley and wish you well and thank you for the discussions .... I'm already revising my opinion on the media! I think I failed to take all of the media into consideration, when I made that comment .... but we live and learn.)


 
Well, all I can say is very, very good luck to you. A caring and intelligent parent can work wonders with home-schooling and you are clearly both of those things.

I believe in personal responsibility and you clearly exercise it in spades. I have known many kids thrive in crappy schools, and many not thrive in great ones. It _is_ a bit of a lottery and there shouldn't be crappy schools in the first place. I have worked very hard to make sure the kids I have taught have been taught well, and I know many teachers who do likewise...but I know we don't always get it right.

I still believe, mainly through experience, that schools are becoming better and that many have been spectacularly turned around. But we are perhaps not there yet.


----------



## emma42

Invictaspirit, I would love to spend the night swapping statistics with you,  but, unfortunately, I have to labour the next few hours making shoes for my children out of old Tesco bags.


----------



## Fleurs263

Invictaspirit ... forgot to tell you, no I don't read the Morning star ... have bought it to check it out y'understand, but to be honest I have found some members of the Communist Party to be stuck in intellectualism, with little or no regard to the 'povety' of the proletartiat!  But now then ...I have suspicions that the socialist and communist movement was taken over by middle classies who had some time on their hands ... 
To be fair, I'm sure there are some good 'uns around. I was making the point, ineptly, I fear, that I'd prefer to buy "The Morning Star" compared to  "The Daily Express" or "The Daily Mail" really.


----------



## Fleurs263

Emma 42 ... what you need is a couple of elves ...


----------



## invictaspirit

emma42 said:


> Invictaspirit, I would love to spend the night swapping statistics with you, but, unfortunately, I have to labour the next few hours making shoes for my children out of old Tesco bags.


 
ROFL.    Just PM me an address and spend the rest of the night having fun instead.  I'll have new shoes on your doorstep in the morning!


----------



## Fleurs263

Invictaspirit you are a flatterer and I fear I have already moved a little towards the right!


----------



## la reine victoria

invictaspirit said:


> Are you saying unintelligent people should do the same jobs and rise as high as intelligent people?
> 
> Incase you are...why?
> 
> I say again...we are what we ourselves can make of our lives. If you have the misfortune to be unintelligent, you are not going to go as far as someone who is. This is nobody's fault...it's just life. We are not all the same. We are different.


 


Your question is now bordering on the ridiculous, with all due respect.

Of course that is not what I am saying. How can people of unequal intelligence possibly rise to the same high positions in life.

I was merely countering your statement -



> But please believe we ourselves, and only ourselves, play the greatest hand in who we are


 
There are certain people whose intelligence will allow them entry into only the most menial of jobs. These are the poorly educated, of whom I have written.

You'll be accusing me next of saying we are all equal, when obviously we are not. It was ever thus and I'm sure it always will be.

The reason we are inviting all the immigrants* into Britain is that there are vacancies to be filled in the "menial" sector which lazy Brits don't consider worth getting out of bed for. They are quite happy to be living on their dole cheques and other benefits which the government is happy to hand out. It is a return to the 1950s when West Indians were invited over here to sweep streets, wash dishes or do general labouring - jobs which Brits considered "infra dig".

* Excluding professionals, such as doctors, dentists, etc.




LRV


----------



## emma42

Invictaspirit, seriously, I strongly disagree with your opinion on poverty - it is simply not borne out by the facts.  Take the family on Income Support I mentioned.  How to buy decent shoes for growing children and pay everything else ? I don't need to go into a list of common household expenses.  It might be possible to buy plastic shoes at the expense of other things - good food, fruits, vegetables.  Income Support benefits(and many low wages) are simply not sufficient for a healthy life.

Thank you so much for your offer, but I fear I lied.  I have no Tesco bags and no children.  I'll definitely get some elves, though.


----------



## invictaspirit

la reine victoria said:


> Your question is now bordering on the ridiculous, with all due respect.
> 
> Of course that is not what I am saying. How can people of unequal intelligence possibly rise to the same high positions in life.
> 
> I was merely countering your statement -
> 
> 
> 
> There are certain people whose intelligence will allow them entry into only the most menial of jobs. These are the poorly educated, of whom I have written.
> 
> You'll be accusing me next of saying we are all equal, when obviously we are not. It was ever thus and I'm sure it always will be.
> 
> The reason we are inviting all the immigrants* into Britain is that there are vacancies to be filled in the "menial" sector which lazy Brits don't consider worth getting out of bed for. They are quite happy to be living on their dole cheques and other benefits which the government is happy to hand out. It is a return to the 1950s when West Indians were invited over here to sweep streets, wash dishes or do general labouring - jobs which Brits considered "infra dig".
> 
> * Excluding professionals, such as doctors, dentists, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
Yeah, my original point was that we are not all the same. You seem to agree. So no need to argue then.

People who are less intelligent, however, can still have great lives. The stupidest bloke in my class at school (when I was a student I mean) now runs a company specialising in retro-fitting air-conditioning systems in period buildings that are used as fashionable architects and web-design offices in the Thames Valley. I would conservatively estimate that he earns 4 times as much money as I do and by all accounts has a really nice wife and three sweet kids. I'd buy him a drink if he ever stopped by but I think he's too busy playing golf and driving fast cars.

Effort. It's a marvelous thing.


----------



## Fleurs263

Emma 42, I fear the elves were ne'er do wells anyway and probably preferred to sit at home than go to work ... scrounging off the Government.  They lacked oppotunity as little little elves and now are stuck in a system.  They fear further education and the debts they will incur and have few skills other than making shoes. But they on principal refuse to work for the minimum wage and to be honest they'd be no better off for working after bills, rent etc ... and they kind of think it's outrageous that they should work hard for someone else, make that person loads of dosh and still be no better off.  But that's the capitalist system!


----------



## emma42

Those scrounging elves should be strung up.  How dare they not want to  be wage slaves in a capitalist hegemony?  In my day, everyone had to make shoes, whether they liked it or not!  And we had National Service.


----------



## Fleurs263

Dear Invictaspirit (said in an outraged tone),
I do hope the stupidest bloke doesn't recognise himself on this thread ...


----------



## maxiogee

This is a great spectator sport!


----------



## don maico

invictaspirit said:


> Name an Iraq coalition country where there has been a rebellion/insurrection against that country's involvement in Iraq. Choices include Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, the USA.
> 
> Cost to the British tax-payer of maintaining the entire monarchy: £36 million a year.
> 
> Cost to the French tax-payer of maintaining Jacques Chirac's office: £74 million a year.
> 
> I read a _Le Monde_ article a couple of months ago. They were questionning the vast un-audited sums available to the French presidency (the money is simply handed over to the Elysees palace and never accounted, made public or questioned. Mitterand used to send his chef in the official presidential jet to Brittany to get fresh oysters for lunch, as an example.) The article compared this budget with the Queen's, which is fully audited, itemised and available to parliamentary and public scrutiny.
> 
> The British monarchy costs every Brit the equivalent of a pint of milk per year. Man the barricades!!


good lets get rid of them "VIVE LA REPUBLIQUE"


----------



## Paulfromitaly

maxiogee said:


> I find it hard to believe that you have any way of backing up that assertion. This was a lady who was famously "not for turning"!



Indeed.. In Italy she used to be addressed as "lady di ferro" that could be something like "the iron lady" or "the tough lady".


----------



## emma42

No one is arguing that the British Monarchy is upholding vile capitalism on its own (unless I've missed something), but the fact remains that it is an anachronism.  But, of course, I forget - we can't possibly get rid of the queen, for who would be our Head of State?  I nominate Mrs Khalique down the road.


----------



## invictaspirit

don maico said:


> good lets get rid of them "VIVE LA REPUBLIQUE"


 
OK.  You start.  The rest of us will be right behind you.  Honest!


----------



## invictaspirit

emma42 said:


> No one is arguing that the British Monarchy is upholding vile capitalism on its own (unless I've missed something), but the fact remains that it is an anachronism. But, of course, I forget - we can't possibly get rid of the queen, for who would be our Head of State? I nominate Mrs Khalique down the road.


 
I vote for President Madam Speaker.

Betty Boothroyd gave me two fags at Gatwick airport and smoked with me.  And she called me 'love' and 'darling'.


----------



## emma42

She would be a good choice, although I still prefer Mrs Khalique because she is unsullied by parliamentary politics.  And she knows what to do with fenugreek.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> This is a great spectator sport!


Do you know what's going on here?

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Robert,
What's going on, as seen from this former colonial outpost, is that three or four very sincere English folk are describing their country. The descriptions are quite varied, as if each lived in a different country entirely. Perhaps they do!

Each is convinced of the 'rightness' of his or her view of the country. It's a little like listening to a few religious zealots, each of whom claims to have a lock on what is true.

The difference between this civil conversation and one about religion is that the participants here, despite their strong convictions, have not abandoned their sense of humor.  Nor have they tried to kill one another in the name of a loving and merciful god.   Finally, the elves are all down at the pub, having a good laugh at the idea of English footwear.  
 __________________


----------



## don maico

la reine victoria said:


> Why dispense with the monarchy? Would you rather we had a president? Blair, for example, who already behaves as though he were President Blair.
> 
> The monarchy, despite what you may think, is still popular with the majority of Brits.
> 
> Our present Queen has been a model Head of State for over 50 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> As for rebellion, I don't believe it is in the British character to be rebellious. Demonstrations and marches are all very well but they are completely ignored by the politicians.
> 
> The very idea of "storming 10 Downing Street" and ousting Blair, or attempting to "blow up the Houses of Parliament" as Guy Fawkes did, is risible. Security surrounding the Prime Minister and the Seat of Government is greater than that given to the Queen.
> 
> What purpose would it serve?
> 
> No, we will continue to complain about yet more stealth taxes, the proposed increase in Council Tax if you live in a "nice" area, or if you have a pleasant view from your window, failing schools, filthy hospitals, child abuse, neglect and abuse of the elderly, detaining the mentally ill in prisons, the anti-social behaviour of our youth, the pathetically short prison sentences handed out by our judges for dreadful crimes, support for the thief who breaks into your home; if you crack him over the head with a heavy object he is able to sue you for assault, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> But rebel - never.
> 
> Rule Britannia!
> Land of Hope and Glory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV



Rule Britania???  Ooooh I forgot - The Falklands, plenty of sheep to control there


----------



## Fleurs263

Having just read the last few comments, I've come to the conclusion that
we're all enjoying ourselves far too much to be rebellious ... the elves were apparently down the pub, some of us were hanging around airports smoking and being friendly, others were looking, (philopsophically,it seems) out of windows at the rest of the world and "Ma'am Queenie" decided to go all loosey goosey and drop the curtseying tradition ... No wonder when I tried to storm No. 10 with a battering ram and a couple of drunken elves, there was no significant change   ....


----------



## don maico

My guess is that we are sheepish and tend to do as we are told. we also accept the status quo far too readily- ie we jsut seem ot know our place in the order of things. More importantly we hate causing a fuss. My belief is that those that rose agains the crown in 1776 should have subsequently invaded us and relievd us oif the tyranny of monarchy and the odious British class system which still pervades to this day. Witness ,if you will, the honours system- knighthoods , peerages and the ridiculous mbe obe and, most laughably, cbes being doled out like sweeties to the toadies for favours given.
CBE- Commander of the British Empire. What effing empire?- I ask. a couple of rocks here and there.
Sir Alan Sugar the barrow boy made good by selling cheap, rubbishy computers. h epromotes New Labout , no doungbt donmeates a considerable sum to its coffers and bingo a knighthood. He now insists evryone addresses him as Si r Alan
Sir Mick Jagger sells milllions of records this one time rebel and now frimly part of the establishment. Even his old mucker Keef is digusted with him.
As for the peers of the realm? Dont even get me to go there. One positive thing, though, is the old duffers with hereditary peerages have been put out to grass and can no longer enjoy the privilidges they had in the House of Lords where htey spent most of their time in a drunken stupor.
Personally I would SCRAP the current honours system altogether and replace it with an Order of Merit one as in most countries. All current titles to be declkaered null and void ie no Sirs no Barons no Marquees no Earls no Dukes etc . Just plain old Miss, Mr and Mrs and for Gawds sake lets get it into our thick sculls we no longer have an Empire and a thoroughly good thing too.
Rant over
Now what are the words of the Internationale?


----------



## Fleurs263

Couldn't agree with you more ... is that true about Alan Sugar? Has he completetly lost the plot then? Barrow boy to Sir in one fell swoop ...or  perhaps barrow boy to Sir by way of exploitation, legal slavery of the minimum wage  and greed?  They say some of the worst capitalists come from "humble" beginnings ... don't go for that myself .. even the working classes can make ethical choices.


----------



## emma42

I, too, agree about the Honours' System.  

I don't think we are that "sheepish", actually, although I believe I know why you say that.  When push really comes to shove, a lot of us stand up for ourselves - Poll Tax, Miners' Strike etc.  A lot of the idiocies we seem to "accept" are simply a sort of national joke (Mick Jagger accepting a knighthood!) - we don't accept them as such, we just laugh at them and then have a nice cup of tea.


----------



## invictaspirit

I think the English rebel when there's something worth rebelling against and I think Emma's right.

The trouble with people with very strong political convictions is that they forget they are in a small minority, that hardly anyone agrees with them, that people think they are a pain in the arse and everyone ignores them.  

When there is something that is truly worth taking a stand against (and I still reckon the Poll Tax is the most recent example) people do take a stand.


----------



## ElaineG

Oh geez, this is what's wrong with you bloody British.

People who start out on opposite sides of the fence (Emma and Invicta) are now heartily agreeing with one another, and before you know it, they'll nip down the pub for a pint, and Invicta will let it be known that Emma is a good lass, and so on and so forth and so much for sturm and drang and drama.

Please look at any thread started by Everness in which Cuchuflete and/or myself has posted to see how the fighting American spirit (still rebellious after 230 years) engages in debate.  Where is the vitriol here?  No ad hominem attacks?  No specious web citations and obssessively maniacal debunking thereof?


----------



## emma42

Well, really!  I can assure you, Madam, that I (and I believe I can speak for my good friend, Invictaspirit) have more than enough vitriol and drama to deal with certain colonials.  

I would continue at more length, but I'm meeting Invicta for a pint.


----------



## Fleurs263

Emma 42, me and the elves is back ... to back you up and point out that your passion and opinion is strong and right, by the way. 
I think being able to debate with someone and have a little fun at the same time is essential; it doesn't matter how long it takes for someone to realize what's right, just as long as eventually they understand  ... that the only way forward is the to axe the Monarchy, bring in collective, co-operative systems in the workplace (with creches, of course), equal pay per hourly rate ... 36 hours of one person's life being equal to another's etc ... and for us to annually clelebrate the day the aristocracy was made to give back stolen lands and live like the rest of us ...


----------



## cuchuflete

ElaineG said:


> Oh geez, this is what's wrong with you bloody British.
> 
> Please look at any thread started by Everness in which Cuchuflete and/or myself has posted to see how the fighting American spirit (still rebellious after 230 years) engages in debate.  Where is the vitriol here?  No ad hominem attacks?  No specious web citations and obssessively maniacal debunking thereof?



Whatever are you speciousing about, my dear lady?
Debunking bunk is such a gentle pursuit, much akin to picking lice from the heads of trolls and saboteurs.   When all is said and done, and the raggamuffins have seen the light, we embrace affectionately and sing madrigals in harmony.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, Fleur.  And elves (you workshy b*****ds).


----------

