General News Discussion

[Spindles]

Gone through a few ages, that's actually a really good rule of thumb

[Ed209]

Did the same.

[AcademicPistol]

half your age and add 7, don't go younger

[Rufus Gwertigan]

yep, but the more difficult a situation is, the more likely we are as humans to face up to all of that situation. So while I agree with what you say about being honest as the best way forwards for them as a couple, I'd guess it's rare for people in situations like this to take that route.

It's be interesting to see some stats around these sorts of things - to see if any teachers do take that 'honest' route.

It would also be interesting if there were stats available to see if having changed the laws* around these things has much changed how much it happens - I guess it has, but I also guess that there's no stats to back that up.

(* things were very different when I was at school; at a mate's Catholic school one of the teachers got a 15 year old pregnant - they got married, he kept his job, she continued thru school to do A levels)

I'd say that's the sort of thing we'd all like to believe of ourselves, but which we couldn't possibly know unless/until it happened - much like the idea of jumping in front of a bus to save our own child.

[eFestivals]

and now for something completely different.....

BBC apology to Queen over Abu Hamza disclosure

This one of a number of stories I've seen in the last year or so, about how the supposedly removed-from-politics 'royals' interfere in politics on a daily basis.

But they would do ... because .... (and this is one of the things which came out in what i've read) .... there is a little known aspect of our 'constitution' (where of course there is no 'constitution', just standard practice) whereby the 'royals' have the right of veto or amendment of any proposed law that impacts on their personal interests.

The way that the 'royal' involvement in politics is presented to us would suggest such a thing does not exist, but it does. And the way that the 'royal' involvement in politics is presented to us would suggest such a thing is never actually exercised, but it is - all the time, constantly.

So rather than being the world's oldest democracy as the govt likes to tell us we are, we remain shackled to the whims of 'royalty' to ensure that they stay filthy rich off the back of the hard work of the citizens subjects.

Tug your forelock, you're in the presence of your betters, plebs.

[Spartacus Mars]

Actually part of the monarch's remit is, and always has been, to question ministers and prime ministers, which is exactly what she did, particularly on a non-partisan basis. The monarch has a number of MPs who advise them on parliamentary activity and the monarch has weekly meetings with the PM.

Her question was entirely sensible too. We had a preacher who was spouting the grossest hatred and clearly inciting violence. She was pretty much "OMG! WTF?", a view many of us shared.

Legally we're citizens not subjects. Also, thanks to Cromwell - a top lad from my old stomping grounds - the monarch sits at the will of parliament where before parliament sat at the will of the monarch.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Spartacus Mars

[eFestivals]

Actually part of the monarch's remit is, and always has been, to question ministers and prime ministers, which is exactly what she did, particularly on a non-partisan basis. The monarch has a number of MPs who advise them on parliamentary activity and the monarch has weekly meetings with the PM.

yes, I know that's what she's meant to do, just as I know it makes us something other than a democracy.

But that's not the real scandal - that's the right, which is regularly exercised, for her and Charlie to get laws amended to their personal benefit.

Her question was entirely sensible too. We had a preacher who was spouting the grossest hatred and clearly inciting violence. She was pretty much "OMG! WTF?", a view many of us shared.

yeah, cos the context in which he's saying that is as irrelevant as her having a Prime Minister who was spouting the grossest hatred and clearly inciting violence and carrying out violence.

Legally we're citizens not subjects.

Actually, we ARE still subjects in all legal senses, including the actual word.

Jack Straw only added in that we're also officially citizens, a completely meaningless thing when nothing of our relationship to the state was changed.

Also, thanks to Cromwell - a top lad from my old stomping grounds - the monarch sits at the will of parliament where before parliament sat at the will of the monarch.

You think that means very much when laws are written by convention to her personal benefit and not the countries benefit?

[kaosmark2]

Is the monarchy really a priority amongst things to moan about in British politics?

There's a lot of problems with it, and ideally we'd abolish it, but I just cba to complain about it until we've dealt with the problems politicians cause us.

[Spindles]

Indeed, the monarchy is the third tier of approval in the passage of any bill, however there has never been a bill rejected or returned by the monarchy in our history and it has merely been a rubber stamp procedure. I wonder if that will continue to be the case when Liz moves on.

That's not to say that the monarch does not give her input to prime ministers in their meetings, she absolutely does and it is true that some of the actions of the government would be influenced by this part of the protocol of government. As all meetings between the Queen and PM are not public matters it is not possible to say accurately to what extent this or any other monarch has affected our laws beyond "it has happened in the past".

It is totally against protocol to reveal details of a private conversation with the monarch and a stupid thing for Frank Gardner to do, he'll never again have another private conversation where anything of value is said, for sure.

[Spindles]

Back to that teacher story:

A few weeks ago he was taking the register, a few weeks from now he'll be signing one.

Sorry, just read that elsewhere so had to share it

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Back to that teacher story:

A few weeks ago he was taking the register, a few weeks from now he'll be signing one.

Sorry, just read that elsewhere so had to share it

Edited September 25, 2012 by Rufus Gwertigan

[Spartacus Mars]

But that's not the real scandal - that's the right, which is regularly exercised, for her and Charlie to get laws amended to their personal benefit.

[eFestivals]

Is the monarchy really a priority amongst things to moan about in British politics?

There's a lot of problems with it, and ideally we'd abolish it, but I just cba to complain about it until we've dealt with the problems politicians cause us.

Is the monarchy really a priority amongst things to moan about in British politics?

There's a lot of problems with it, and ideally we'd abolish it, but I just cba to complain about it until we've dealt with the problems politicians cause us.

Some of the problems being caused to us by politicians are as a result of royal protocols - where a law gets changed from what it was to something else to keep Liz happy.

Indeed, the monarchy is the third tier of approval in the passage of any bill, however there has never been a bill rejected or returned by the monarchy in our history and it has merely been a rubber stamp procedure.

you need to do some research!!!

While the words you use there are completely true, that's not everything there is. Before a bill gets read in the HoC, Liz & Charlie gets to look over it, and have bits changed they doesn't like - and it happens on a regular basis to many bills.

The info about this is out there, I've read a couple of reports about it in the last year (both at The Guardian, I think).

[eFestivals]

Any examples to give on the stuff that has been changed?

the only thing I can remember that the article said was changed was something which affected Charlie's coastline rights (he 'owns' the coastline [including to a distance out into the sea] around the south west as Duchy of Cornwall) - mineral extraction of some kind I think it was.

While that doesn't sound like much (and perhaps it wasn't in monetary terms), it's still the case that he's personally benefiting from this countries assets rather than the people of the country, and the laws of the country are being warped for him to do so.

Remember, he only 'owns' that coastline as a result of being a part of the monarchy, and aside from the parts in 'ownership' of Liz & Co it's not possible for a private individual or corporation to have the same ownership rights of the coastline (they're held by the state).

If the monarchy is as benign an influence on political life as is standardly claimed, then the draft laws would not be amended via the privilege he's been exercising, and neither would the monarchy retain ownership rights for things which it' not possible for the public at large to have.

I was shocked to hear that they have these privileges in law, and even more shocked to hear that they're used in the modern age. Likewise, I've only recently discovered that Liz has a representative who stands behind the speaker (I've forgotten his official title), and essentially controls what the speaker is permitted to allow to happen within the HoC (and again, this is a power that's regularly used).

What it comes down to is that the whole country is being conned. Feudalism is still running the country, and we're not the worlds oldest democracy, we're the worlds biggest liars.

[Ed209]

To be fair, it was an "off the record" private discussion that Frank Gardner had with the Queen over lunch at her invitation. Sloppy journalism from an editor at the BBC

[eFestivals]

To be fair, it was an "off the record" private discussion that Frank Gardner had with the Queen over lunch at her invitation. Sloppy journalism from an editor at the BBC

whoaaaa!!!

It's the BBC's remit to report news on an impartial basis - and that includes not kowtowing to Liz if/when the public interest is greater than her 'right' to not have her words reported. If she doesn't want to risk her words reported then she knows what to do.

And this is certainly something where the public interest outweighs her 'right' to confidentiality - because interference in the governing of the country by the monarch is something she's (supposedly) not meant to do - but clearly does.

She's allowed her personal concerns about Abu. She's allowed to express those concerns to a journo. What she is not permitted to do (supposedly) is to try to influence the governing of the country - which she did by raising Abu with a home secretary.

The scandal here is not the reporting of her words, but the fact that she spoke those words to try to influence govt

[Spindles]

you need to do some research!!!

While the words you use there are completely true, that's not everything there is. Before a bill gets read in the HoC, Liz & Charlie gets to look over it, and have bits changed they doesn't like - and it happens on a regular basis to many bills.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Spindles

[Ed209]

whoaaaa!!!

It's the BBC's remit to report news on an impartial basis - and that includes not kowtowing to Liz if/when the public interest is greater than her 'right' to not have her words reported. If she doesn't want to risk her words reported then she knows what to do.

And this is certainly something where the public interest outweighs her 'right' to confidentiality - because interference in the governing of the country by the monarch is something she's (supposedly) not meant to do - but clearly does.

She's allowed her personal concerns about Abu. She's allowed to express those concerns to a journo. What she is not permitted to do (supposedly) is to try to influence the governing of the country - which she did by raising Abu with a home secretary.

The scandal here is not the reporting of her words, but the fact that she spoke those words to try to influence govt

[eFestivals]

I'm only stating what I was taught when I studied politics A level a quarter of a century ago. I'm not aware of any bill that has been changed, can you show evidence of some that have and I'll happily change my opinion?

until I read what I read recently I'd have gone with that "A level politics" version too.

Nothing has been changed - ever. That's the point. It's a right that Liz & Co have always had (since they shifted some of their power to Parliament. I'm not entirely sure at what point it started). It's a right of theirs that has essentially been hidden from the public until recently - if I'm remembering what I read in the article correctly, it's something that's come out as a result of FoI requests.

The evidence is out there (as I already said, in a [i think] Guardian article of the last year) somewhere. If I get a moment I'll try googling for it, but it's nothing you couldn't do for yourself.

[eFestivals]

The Queen was expressing views on government matters. This is perfectly within her rights and is her duty to do so. This is why she meets with the PM every week.

nope it's not "her duty".

If we're the democracy that we as a country like to claim then she has no place making any interference in politics. She should sign everything which is put in front of her, without need of her to even read it.

[Spindles]

Yeah, I think that we are talking from different angles about the same process. The Queen offers her advice on the work of her government and might, at times, suggest things take a path in one way or another. Because this is not a written process there is never going to be any way to judge just to what extent her influence exists, it could literally be a tickle here and there, it could be a "you are NOT going to do that" and is most likely somewhere between the 2.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, I think that we are talking from different angles about the same process. The Queen offers her advice on the work of her government and might, at times, suggest things take a path in one way or another. Because this is not a written process there is never going to be any way to judge just to what extent her influence exists, it could literally be a tickle here and there, it could be a "you are NOT going to do that" and is most likely somewhere between the 2.

nope, it's really not that. It's a 'right of amendment' that she has for laws that has always been exercised but which the public has been very specifically denied knowledge of - to keep up the sham that the monarchy has no role in politics and that we're a democracy.

When I read the article that I did I couldn't believe a bigger thing wasn't being made of it.

[eFestivals]

I think I've found the article (if it's not the exact one I read, it looks to be something similar).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

[Spindles]

Fascinating, cheers, reading the older article first. Clearly more power than we were taught in politics

[eFestivals]

Fascinating, cheers, reading the older article first. Clearly more power than we were taught in politics

yup - the British public has been massively lied to for centuries, with a deliberate cover-up at the heart of govt.

If the people of this country has an IQ of over 50, this being revealed should see the monarchy abolished, and all political parties and politicians discredited.

It's revolution time. Who's with me?

Yeah, that's what makes it so very sad.