Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first reaction to the Royal Engagement from YouGov and Pri

2

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
    Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:


    I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.

    The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.

    FPT.
    Don’t know how much influence she really has - but even if it’s basically zero it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t call on Bangladesh govt to do the right thing.

    This will surely be hugely damaging for her career - whereas if she got this guy released... I can’t see the Labour volunteers who support her liking this at all.



    She has handled it badly, certainly.

    Whether this will damage her career I'm not so sure. Labour seem willing to swallow a whole load of smelly camels. If anti-semitism, supping with terrorists, shilling for the Iranians etc etc doesn't harm you I don't see why this would. Though some who supported her may not like this, she now has a large majority so can probably afford not to worry about a loss of some support.

    Getting him released or trying to would do her a power of good. She may not want to because then she could get inundated by lots of other similar requests. Bangladesh has a very poor human rights record. I can understand why she might want to concentrate on her work here rather than acting as a one-woman Amnesty (Bangladesh branch).

    The other possibility is that she simply does not want to do anything which would involve criticising her family. Fair enough from a personal perspective - even if it is at odds with statements she has made in the past. Still, hypocrisy is pretty widespread and survivable.

    The worst possibility from her perspective is that she agrees with what the Bangladesh government is doing and may even have tipped them off. That really ought to be career-ending. But I stress that there is no evidence of this. Just questions which Channel 4 raised and which have yet to be answered.
    I think she's been badly damaged. She comes across as being implicated in the conduct of a repressive regime, as merely strategic in her support for human rights, and the way she responded to the questioning revealed her to be a deeply unpleasant individual. I'm usually a Labour voter, but for me she now joins Ken Livingstone as someone I could never countenance voting for.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
    Yes, he is a Macron fan if ever there was one, a greater champion of the ideals of the French Republic and EUphilia you could not find than Our Eagles, even down to his snappy dress sense! His pretend Francophobia is all an act
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    If the job us merely ceremonial it doesn't matter much if it's restricted. As for the anthem, sure, although as an atheist I don't really note the literal meaning anyway, it's just a noise I make to express national fervour at sporting events.
  • HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
    Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
    Far too cold to go out in this weather.
  • This is getting embarrassing. For the second time today I find myself agreeing with @NickPalmer.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
    Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
    Far too cold to go out in this weather.
    Bloody Mollies Game

    Walked out after 10 mins
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    edited November 2017
    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Well, apart from Miracle on 42nd Street, natch.

    Edit, and maybe the Muppets Christmas Carol.
  • HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
    Do you want to see other recent examples of your "fat thumbs"?
    Oh, and I hadn't actually read the thread and seen it was a tweet. I'd just seen the typo at the beginning of the vanilla thread and assumed it was the often fat thumbed Frenchman in control of things tonight! ;)
    It is usually auto-correct that annoys me.

    The morning thread talks about 'dildos', don't worry that's not a typo.
  • HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
    Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
    Far too cold to go out in this weather.
    Bloody Mollies Game

    Walked out after 10 mins
    So annoying when that happens.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    edited November 2017
    DavidL said:

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    The REALLY big debate of the night should have been should I eat the tablet in my hotel room which was best before the end of November 2017?

    Well, too late now.
    To those not fluent in Scottish, that is a truly bizarre question.

    (He means fudge).

    Edit: and it is still good for 26.25 hours anyway.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    Ishmael_Z said:

    DavidL said:

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    The REALLY big debate of the night should have been should I eat the tablet in my hotel room which was best before the end of November 2017?

    Well, too late now.
    To those not fluent in Scottish, that is a truly bizarre question.

    (He means fudge).

    Edit: and it is still good for 26.25 hours anyway.
    Fudge isn't tablet. It doesn't have nearly enough sugar in it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs

    2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    edited November 2017
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs

    2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
    'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Obsession with Brexit, seeing every issue through its lens has surely has become a medical condition?
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs

    2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
    'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
    Not when played properly. It's a simple tune to sing compared with the US - over an octave and a half - for example.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2017

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs

    2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
    'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
    I would certainly have Jerusalem as the English anthem at sporting events where England is playing as it is at the Commonwealth Games.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

    Ann Widdecombe
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    Damn, the Saints were doing so well.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

    The Queen of course.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:


    I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.

    The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.

    FPT.
    Don’t know how much influence she really has - but even if it’s basically zero it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t call on Bangladesh govt to do the right thing.

    This will surely be hugely damaging for her career - whereas if she got this guy released... I can’t see the Labour volunteers who support her liking this at all.



    She has handled it badly, certainly.

    Whether this will damage her career I'm not so sure. Labour seem willing to swallow a whole load of smelly camels. If anti-semitism, supping with terrorists, shilling for the Iranians etc etc doesn't harm you I don't see why this would. Though some who supported her may not like this, she now has a large majority so can probably afford not to worry about a loss of some support.

    Getting him released or trying to would do her a power of good. She may not want to because then she could get inundated by lots of other similar requests. Bangladesh has a very poor human rights record. I can understand why she might want to concentrate on her work here rather than acting as a one-woman Amnesty (Bangladesh branch).

    The other possibility is that she simply does not want to do anything which would involve criticising her family. Fair enough from a personal perspective - even if it is at odds with statements she has made in the past. Still, hypocrisy is pretty widespread and survivable.

    The worst possibility from her perspective is that she agrees with what the Bangladesh government is doing and may even have tipped them off. That really ought to be career-ending. But I stress that there is no evidence of this. Just questions which Channel 4 raised and which have yet to be answered.
    I think she's been badly damaged. She comes across as being implicated in the conduct of a repressive regime, as merely strategic in her support for human rights, and the way she responded to the questioning revealed her to be a deeply unpleasant individual. I'm usually a Labour voter, but for me she now joins Ken Livingstone as someone I could never countenance voting for.
    Interesting reaction, thanks.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774
    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.

    I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Total uninhibited, life-affirming exuberance.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

    The Queen of course.
    David Attenborough.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

    Eddie Izzard
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Total uninhibited, life-affirming exuberance.
    It is so manipulative. Yuck.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.

    I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
    I think it was a cruel thing to do to both of them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

    Eddie Izzard
    Donald Trump.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

    The Queen of course.
    David Attenborough.
    A good bid. Maybe we should have an age limit for nominations.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Total uninhibited, life-affirming exuberance.
    I really like it. Alan Rickman in particular.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.

    I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
    How would anyone know that? And who takes their riding instructor on a fishing holiday? Charles may be dim, but even so...
  • stevef said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
    Yeah but they're not there to gawp at the Élysée Palace.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.

    I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
    How would anyone know that? And who takes their riding instructor on a fishing holiday? Charles may be dim, but even so...
    I heard it from someone who had spoken to the gillies. Charles was apparently completely indifferent and no doubt went home to Camilla. A different kind of marriage.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    stevef said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
    And look at their Presidents. Pretty much all of them guilty of "inappropriate behaviour", adultery and, in some cases, downright corruption.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Total uninhibited, life-affirming exuberance.
    I really like it. Alan Rickman in particular.
    My mother, although not a big crier in general, tears up every year at the Colin Firth storyline.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017
    stevef said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
    No it doesn't. Most visited cities:

    1 Bangkok
    2 London
    3 Paris

    https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2015-06-03/the-10-most-visited-cities-of-2015-london-bangkok-new-york

    The top 2 have monarchies.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    edited November 2017
    Danny565 said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Total uninhibited, life-affirming exuberance.
    I really like it. Alan Rickman in particular.
    My mother, although not a big crier in general, tears up every year at the Colin Firth storyline.
    The one poor bit is Martine McCutcheon who is just dreadful. The extras on the DVD are good too. they really should have done a director's cut.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,775
    Cyclefree said:

    stevef said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
    And look at their Presidents. Pretty much all of them guilty of "inappropriate behaviour", adultery and, in some cases, downright corruption.
    Not entirely confident that I know what "inappropriate behaviour" is for a French President.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: Legatum comes out for the Norway model ☺️ https://twitter.com/legatuminst/status/935956585444265986
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    You may think it quaint and a nice historical linkage, I think it is offensive to anyone who believes in a meritocracy.

    As for the attraction of tourists, London already attracts tourists. The UK already attracts tourists. Go to visit the UK and you can stand outside Buckingham Palace ... go to visit France and you can go inside the Palace of Versailles and other former royal palaces consistently.

    I'd think opening up our all of our royal institutions so they can actually be visited by tourists consistently might just attract more tourists (and no a tiny period of the year doesn't count).

    As for "saving us from President Blair" what did that achieve? Did it prevent Iraq? Did it prevent would-be President Brown from crashing our economy? Did it prevent would-be President Cameron from causing us to terminate our EU membership for someone opposed to that?

    Our PM wielding Presidential powers without checks and balances but lacking the name is not something I find the slightest bit reassuring.
  • DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    stevef said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
    And look at their Presidents. Pretty much all of them guilty of "inappropriate behaviour", adultery and, in some cases, downright corruption.
    Not entirely confident that I know what "inappropriate behaviour" is for a French President.
    Not having a mistress or two.
  • stevef said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
    Yeah but they're not there to gawp at the Élysée Palace.
    The Élysée Palace is equivalent to Downing Street.

    The seat of the Ancien Regime was Versailles and yes tourists don't just stand and gawp at it. They go for tours in it all year round.
  • DavidL said:

    Not entirely confident that I know what "inappropriate behaviour" is for a French President.

    That's easy to answer:

    http://gawker.com/french-president-rolls-up-to-his-mistresss-flat-on-bac-1499300883

    The shame of it! A moped, for heaven's sake!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The .
    You may think it quaint and a nice historical linkage, I think it is offensive to anyone who believes in a meritocracy.

    As for the attraction of tourists, London already attracts tourists. The UK already attracts tourists. Go to visit the UK and you can stand outside Buckingham Palace ... go to visit France and you can go inside the Palace of Versailles and other former royal palaces consistently.

    I'd think opening up our all of our royal institutions so they can actually be visited by tourists consistently might just attract more tourists (and no a tiny period of the year doesn't count).

    As for "saving us from President Blair" what did that achieve? Did it prevent Iraq? Did it prevent would-be President Brown from crashing our economy? Did it prevent would-be President Cameron from causing us to terminate our EU membership for someone opposed to that?

    Our PM wielding Presidential powers without checks and balances but lacking the name is not something I find the slightest bit reassuring.
    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    You may think it quaint and a nice historical linkage, I think it is offensive to anyone who believes in a meritocracy.

    As for the attraction of tourists, London already attracts tourists. The UK already attracts tourists. Go to visit the UK and you can stand outside Buckingham Palace ... go to visit France and you can go inside the Palace of Versailles and other former royal palaces consistently.

    I'd think opening up our all of our royal institutions so they can actually be visited by tourists consistently might just attract more tourists (and no a tiny period of the year doesn't count).

    As for "saving us from President Blair" what did that achieve? Did it prevent Iraq? Did it prevent would-be President Brown from crashing our economy? Did it prevent would-be President Cameron from causing us to terminate our EU membership for someone opposed to that?

    Our PM wielding Presidential powers without checks and balances but lacking the name is not something I find the slightest bit reassuring.
    Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    DavidL said:

    Not entirely confident that I know what "inappropriate behaviour" is for a French President.

    That's easy to answer:

    http://gawker.com/french-president-rolls-up-to-his-mistresss-flat-on-bac-1499300883

    The shame of it! A moped, for heaven's sake!
    At least Chirac had class and used a motorcade to see his mistress
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    stevef said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
    Yeah but they're not there to gawp at the Élysée Palace.
    The Élysée Palace is equivalent to Downing Street.

    The seat of the Ancien Regime was Versailles and yes tourists don't just stand and gawp at it. They go for tours in it all year round.
    France effectively has a monarchical Presidency anyway, they don't call Macron 'the second Sun King' for nothing
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.

    The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.

    So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
    You may think it slightest bit reassuring.
    Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
    What is 'meritocracy' anyway? If you had wealthy and educated parents, went to a private or top state school, were born without a disability etc you automatically started with an advantage over many of your peers before you even reached adulthood.

    Those who go from rags to riches are only a tiny minority of our society even today.
  • HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Headline article: The headline to it is nonsense. The republican movement are singular failures who are no closer to achieving their objectives as I am of winning the Ballon D'Or and an Oscar. A poll on the fluff of a Royal wedding isn't worth a fart as regards the wider issue of having a monarch as Head of State,

    Trumpton

    THESE TWEETS ARE A BIG LOUD DISTRACTION TACTIC

    See that? Easy, isn't it.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Avast, and belay your puking, it doesn't say that. It's “Long to reign over us“.
  • TGOHF said:
    If the EU wanted us to stay together they should have treated Cameron's negotiations with more respect.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Avast, and belay your puking, it doesn't say that. It's “Long to reign over us“.
    Let me just move my quotation mark three characters along: Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone born "to reign over us"

    Happy now? Does that make it better?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,091
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Who is the second son?
    Whoever the genetic father is there is only one real father, the one who brought him up after his mother died.
    Harry is clearly a Windsor. He has some of Prince Philip in his younger days about him.
    I am not convinced he is related to the Royal Family at all. But he does seem to be a decent guy
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Repayment plan over 40 years? Surely that's great news?!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
    So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.

    Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.

    Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RobD said:

    Repayment plan over 40 years? Surely that's great news?!

    If Mandy croaks sooner it’s a win-win.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    Avast, and belay your puking, it doesn't say that. It's “Long to reign over us“.
    Let me just move my quotation mark three characters along: Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone born "to reign over us"

    Happy now? Does that make it better?
    But it doesn't say anything about birth; the singer might think the monarch is so fine and dandy that you'd want to be reigned over by them anyway, irrespective of how they got the gig in the first place.

    Advance Australia Fair is pretty rubbish too btw. Look at us, we stole an entire continent from the Abos.
  • Sean_F said:

    Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.

    That's fine for their land, cash etc subject to proper inheritance taxes etc if applicable.

    Not to state land which is what the Crown Estates essentially are. And certainly not for the country, if May were to die today I wouldn't expect the next PM to be her next of kin.

    The French royals lost their heads, no republican proposes that for the Windsors. They should be given a generous pension, retirement [especially for the older ones] and some land to call their own. Anything belonging to the Crown should become the countries which it essentially is already.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited November 2017
    It seems to me that the best system is that in the Commonwealth Realms, where the Governor-General serves only five years or so and is usually some non-partisan member of the Great and Good of the country. Gives you all the advantages of a non-partisan monarchy without the risk of genetics throwing up a numpty or reincarnation of Henry VIII. No-one stays in too long, and you don't get superannuated politicians who are sure to be unpopular with some part of the electorate as ceremonial president either. (And no, do not even go near an American separation-of-powers system: seven years in the US has convinced me Parliamentarianism is far superior.)

    Perhaps we should redefine the UK as consisting of Windsor Castle, Buck House, Balmoral and Sandringham and declare the rest to be the Dominion of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I nominate David Attenborough for first Governor-General.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
    Less likely here than in the US simply due to numbers, AA is ~ 14%; black population here is ~ 3%.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
    So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.

    Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.

    Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
    The eldest child of either sex would succeed. You are out of date.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:
    Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
    So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.

    Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.

    Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
    Whether its a constitutional or absolute monarchy is neither here nor there, for as long as it is hereditary it is still someone born to be head of state and thus voiding the chances of anyone else to be so. In America theoretically at least anyone, even now we know a black boy from Hawaii, can grow up to be Head of State. That's simply better than what we have.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
    So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.

    Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.

    Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
    The eldest child of either sex would succeed. You are out of date.
    Apologies, forgot the 2011 change but that does not really change the point
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2017
    TGOHF said:
    The man has a point though. Britain has turned away from our friends and relations in Europe, to a sort of inward looking isolationism.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    TGOHF said:
    The man has a point though. Britain has turned away from our friends and relations in Europe, to a sort of inward looking isolationism.
    Are we turning away from them in the fight against terrorism/ISIS? I don't think so...
  • TGOHF said:
    The man has a point though. Britain has turned away from our friends and relations in Europe, to a sort of inward looking isolationism.
    Have we turned away from them or did they turn away from us?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
    So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.

    Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.

    Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
    Whether its a constitutional or absolute monarchy is neither here nor there, for as long as it is hereditary it is still someone born to be head of state and thus voiding the chances of anyone else to be so. In America theoretically at least anyone, even now we know a black boy from Hawaii, can grow up to be Head of State. That's simply better than what we have.
    I am not so sure. A head of State chosen by accident of birth is more random than an ambitious politician from anywhere.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs

    2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
    'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
    Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    May to guarantee no regulatory divergence in Northern Ireland.
    https://twitter.com/thetimesie/status/936000986652577792
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:
    The man has a point though. Britain has turned away from our friends and relations in Europe, to a sort of inward looking isolationism.
    Yes - apart from telling them repeatedly this wasn’t the sort of club we wanted and them ignoring us and taking our cash you are spot on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.

    Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.

    As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.

    Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.

    You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.

    Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
    So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.

    Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.

    Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
    Whether its a constitutional or absolute monarchy is neither here nor there, for as long as it is hereditary it is still someone born to be head of state and thus voiding the chances of anyone else to be so. In America theoretically at least anyone, even now we know a black boy from Hawaii, can grow up to be Head of State. That's simply better than what we have.
    Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
  • TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.

    Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2017
    You really do have to be a very specially nutty kind of extreme Brexiteer to want to punish the EU by paying them loads of reparations dosh upfront rather than putting it on the never-never.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    DavidL said:

    Danny565 said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Total uninhibited, life-affirming exuberance.
    I really like it. Alan Rickman in particular.
    My mother, although not a big crier in general, tears up every year at the Colin Firth storyline.
    The one poor bit is Martine McCutcheon who is just dreadful. The extras on the DVD are good too. they really should have done a director's cut.
    Almost the entire movie is utter cack.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/-em-love-actually-em-is-the-least-romantic-film-of-all-time/282091/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Yes. Once of the worst movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
    We could have a new party game. Nominating the individual who you would be most shocked to discover was involved in "inappropriate behaviour".

    The Queen of course.
    You've clearly not read this book which details some of her more inappropriate behaviour.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs

    2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
    'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
    Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
    I prefer Comrades, The Voices.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    May to guarantee no regulatory divergence in Northern Ireland.
    https://twitter.com/thetimesie/status/936000986652577792

    So a customs union, but not the Customs Union?

    She really knows how to negotiate badly.

    Soon she will concede on Freedom of Movement.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.

    Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.

    From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
    1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs

    2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
    'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
    Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
    Maybe. But it is a poem by a radical proto-anarchist (albeit one with a spiritual bent).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: Legatum comes out for the Norway model ☺️ https://twitter.com/legatuminst/status/935956585444265986

    The model being to have vast amounts of oil?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    'Love Actually' is indisputably the best Christmas film.

    Agreed. It gets better and better every time I watch it. A work of genius.
    What?? It's vomit-inducing.
    Yes. Once of the worst movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through.
    'Love Actually' - a movie for those who love nothing more than to listen to a spot of Coldplay while tucking into their Hawaiian Pizza.
This discussion has been closed.