The British Royal Family

Message boards : Politics : The British Royal Family
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1715294 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 13:28:24 UTC - in response to Message 1715280.  
Last modified: 19 Aug 2015, 13:31:28 UTC

I really don't see where there is room for a King/Queen in a Democracy, unless the position is filled for a fixed term, by popular vote.

Abolish the succession order and elect them instead.
Beeing born to "office" seems silly to me.
In our country we had the Westrogothic Law from early 13th centuary to 16th centuary.
One of the most quoted lines in it is the Rightless Law.
"Sveær egho konong at taka ok sva vrækæ". Swedes have the right to elect a king and also dismiss him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen
ID: 1715294 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715310 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 14:13:22 UTC - in response to Message 1715267.  

So, Johnny Foreigner, please, by all means, tell us Brits how wrong we are about the Royal Family, though a word of advice, when you do so, please take time to get your facts straight.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions in calling the Government Muppets. This was a stated fact from Officials & who am I to disbelieve that?

"The Queen’s official expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate."

So if YOUR facts are correct, then government officials are nothing but liars. Thanks for that :-)

Also, no mention of a foreigner standing up for your QUEEN? Instead attack Johnny Foreigner because his facts are not correct? Just what are facts & who provides them?

What proof is there that THOSE facts are true in light of what you posted & what officials have stated?


The history of the Crown Estates are interesting. While there may be a sliver of truth to the "surrender by the Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate", such language masks the truth of the arrangement. As noted George III was the first to surrender the Crown Estates to the Treasury, and every Monarch since then has made the same commitment (whether they have any choice in the matter is open to debate, though it's my understanding they don't).

The Sovereign's estates had always been used to raise revenue, and over time large areas were granted to nobles. The estate fluctuated in size and value but by 1760, when George III acceded to the throne, the asset had been reduced to a small area producing little income - revenue which George III needed to fulfil the Sovereign's fiscal responsibilities to the nation.

By that time taxes had become the prime source of revenue for the United Kingdom and Parliament administered the country, so an agreement was reached that the Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - formerly known as the Civil List. This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign. Crown Lands in Scotland were included within the arrangement from 1832.

(source)
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715310 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715313 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 14:24:12 UTC - in response to Message 1715257.  

I am almost speechless, I am welcoming Sirius's post with open arms, who would have thought it. Maybe misjudgements have been made, if so I hold my hands up. Well done that man.

The 36m cost of the monarchy for the last financial year was equivalent to 56p per person in the country and represented “value for money”.


Cost

Ah terribly sorry Chris, but I'm about to educate you. It seems that you did not read my post sufficiently enough.

I did mention Crown Estates, also, I've just found out why I cannot obtain any Civil List reports after 2011. The government changed everything around (I wonder why?) - It's now called the Sovereign Grant & Reserve.

Sovereign Grant & Sovereign Grant Reserve

"The Queen’s official expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. The Sovereign Grant is calculated based on 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate for the financial year two years previous. The Crown Estate surplus for the financial year 2012-13 amounted to £252.6 million thereby producing a Sovereign Grant of £37.9 million for 2014-15.

Official expenditure met by the Sovereign Grant in 2014-15 amounted to £35.7 million (2013-14: £35.7 million) in line with the previous year. The equivalent of the excess of the Sovereign Grant and other income over expenditure of £2.2 million in 2014-15 was transferred to the Sovereign Grant Reserve (2013-14: £0.4 million)."

So the issue about the Royal Family being parasites on the nation is...

...WHAT exactly?

In effect, the Royal family actually contributes to the Treasury to the tune of £215,000,000 aprrox. per annum.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum...

...Johnny Foreigner learnt to count :-)

As noted in other posts, the suggestion that the Crown Estates are owned by the Monarchy is open to debate, every monarch since George III has surrendered ownership to the Treasury. Thus, income from the Estates is not a royal contribution to the public purse, it's income from publicly held properties of which a percentage is diverted to (not withheld by) the Monarchy.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715313 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1715314 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 14:27:26 UTC - in response to Message 1715310.  

From your link.

"In 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act became law. Under the Act The Crown Estate continues to give its entire annual surplus (net profit) to the Treasury. The Act simply provides a mechanism that will be used by the Treasury to determine the amount of Government funding for the Monarch by reference to the amount of our annual surplus."

So in effect, & as you stated, the Crown Estate is public property. Just like the Maastricht & Lisbon Treaties, the citizens of the United Kingdom had no say in any Act that allows the Royal Family to be funded, which brings us to this: -

As you & Es99 are against the Royal Family, Es99 clearly stated but yours so/so...

Powers such as these should be vested in a democratic institution with no higher authority than the public that elected officials into these institutions. While the Head of State is not elected, Britain can never truly be democratic.

...is that why many anti-monarchists departed these shores?

If a referendum was held & only for those citizens that actually reside in the UK, "Do you want the Monarchy to remain or see someone like President Blair as head of state?

I'll lay odds on that the Anti-Monarchists will end up on the bottom of the pile.
ID: 1715314 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1715352 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 16:14:00 UTC - in response to Message 1715170.  


Sorry but it wasn't, it was just a simple excuse to have another thinly veiled attack upon the Royal family in general. "I am sorry you fail to see that" is just your shorthand for "You obviously don't agree with me so I'll try and convince you a second time, that I'm right and you are wrong", another debating strategy.

So because I cannot see how you can separate the topics out and still have a full conversation about them you call it a tactic? How controlling of you.

Very bitchy. Meow.

Personal insult and absolutely nothing to do with my point.


Wrong, the media publish as much as they can about the Royals because they know that the majority of the public want to read it, and it sells good copy and makes them a profit.

You are aware that there are lots of things that will sell, not just stories about the royal family. Not everyone is so vapid that ALL they want to read is stories about the royals.


Not in the sort of society that you would prefer to live in. The older you get you more you are turning out to be a closet Cromwellian,

You caught me, I am planning to remove the monarchy and install myself as Lord Protector.

not just a Sophist.

Is that meant to be an insult?


That sounds like simple envy to me. No doubt you don't like the man next door who has a bigger house and a newer car than you do.

Another personal attack. Is that all you know how to do?

Running a Monarchy that the people want is expensive, but the amount awarded under the Civil list doesn't come near the true cost, that is topped up by their private income, and investments that were inherited.

And there we have it. Inherited how? Where from? Did they just appear one day with magic money?

Again that sounds like a chip on the shoulder towards anyone who is better off than you are.

Another personal attack. This is really getting tiresome.

It is difficult to disagree with that per se, but it would not be so much as to who they are, as being able to afford top class legal representation. A QC in the High Court is much more likely to get a result than a solicitor in the Crown court.

You are so out of touch with the experience of the average person in the street, I don't even know where to start.


They may be a waste of your time in your opinion, you do not have the right to "tell" me whether that should be so in my opinion.

You want them, you pay for them, just don't expect me to be sympathetic about their "woes" or the fact that they are hounded by the paparazzi because people like you can't get enough of them.

Another debating tactic where you try to tell people that they are wrong because they don't think like you do.

Another personal attack. How many is that so far? You really have a personal issue with me, don't you?


My gosh you do think a lot of yourself don't you.

Another personal attack. How many is that now?

The day the world starts being like you, society as we know it would collapse.

..and another.

Well now lets cogitate on that one shall we? It is precisely because of people like you that there is the amount of anti monarchy feeling that there is, however much in the minority.

Just doing my bit.
Another debating tactic which tries to turn the spotlight from you to someone else when on the backfoot.

That is quite a sad statement.

You seem to have a pathological hatred of anyone that that is better off by birth than you and yours are. But lets remember that you yourself had a privileged start in life, you went to university and got a degree, you went on to get a post graduate second degree in Education. Not all young people have those opportunities. Did you have any student loans to pay off?

Wow, extremely personal attack. You clearly have nothing to say except use information you were told from our former friendship to try to tear me down.

You really have no shame. I have no idea what you are even trying to suggest here? Are you attacking me because my parents weren't rich and I went to a standard Comprehensive school? Are you attacking me because I was lucky enough to go to college before student grants were abolished? I really can't figure out your point here. Because all young people had the opportunities I did back then, otherwise I wouldn't have had those opportunities. Or was it just a flailing attack hoping to hit a sore point?

You may personally detest the Royal family and what they stand for but thankfully for the rest of us you are in the minority. But I have to agree with Evelyn Beatrice Hall's comment (not Voltaire) but it pains me to do so.

So you are going to stop your constant complaints every time I post? I think it is time you got over your snit at me being made a moderator, its been a while now and I am getting really fed up with your nasty attitude about it.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1715352 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715367 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 17:02:32 UTC - in response to Message 1715314.  

From your link.

"In 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act became law. Under the Act The Crown Estate continues to give its entire annual surplus (net profit) to the Treasury. The Act simply provides a mechanism that will be used by the Treasury to determine the amount of Government funding for the Monarch by reference to the amount of our annual surplus."

So in effect, & as you stated, the Crown Estate is public property. Just like the Maastricht & Lisbon Treaties, the citizens of the United Kingdom had no say in any Act that allows the Royal Family to be funded, which brings us to this: -

As you & Es99 are against the Royal Family, Es99 clearly stated but yours so/so...

Powers such as these should be vested in a democratic institution with no higher authority than the public that elected officials into these institutions. While the Head of State is not elected, Britain can never truly be democratic.

...is that why many anti-monarchists departed these shores?

If a referendum was held & only for those citizens that actually reside in the UK, "Do you want the Monarchy to remain or see someone like President Blair as head of state?

I'll lay odds on that the Anti-Monarchists will end up on the bottom of the pile.

I have no opinion worth discussing about the members of the Royal Family, though I am a republican (for those in the U.S., please note the lower case "r"). I do understand that it's a minority opinion, though it was not the primary reason for my leaving the UK (and I suspect it wasn't your primary motivation to move there).

Use of the word "citizens" is interesting, it wasn't that long ago that the general public were considered subjects.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715367 · Report as offensive
Profile Smoke me a kipper
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Apr 01
Posts: 122
Credit: 270,914
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1715393 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 17:42:42 UTC - in response to Message 1715331.  
Last modified: 19 Aug 2015, 17:45:38 UTC

Oh. God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something."

And you expect to be taken seriously around here with a comment like that?


Why not?

You're telling us to take King Charles-I-wish-I-was-my-mistress's-tampon, seriously.
ID: 1715393 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1715491 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 20:29:37 UTC - in response to Message 1715367.  
Last modified: 19 Aug 2015, 20:35:05 UTC

I do understand that it's a minority opinion, though it was not the primary reason for my leaving the UK (and I suspect it wasn't your primary motivation to move there).

Use of the word "citizens" is interesting, it wasn't that long ago that the general public were considered subjects.

I didn't move here, I was brought here :-)

There's always one who wants legalese. I stated citizen for the simple fact is that I'm neither a subject or citizen, I'm a resident of long standing & appreciated the pomp & circumstance of the parades & Royal celebrations, much of which has been curtailed due to terrorism over the past 40 years.

You've stated that you're a republican, so you'd much rather a President Blair rather than a monarch?

What's the difference asides from your claim that without an elected head of state, Britain is not truly democratic?

Edit: -

What do you think the cost is in maintaining & staffing the following?

Elysee Palace

The White House
ID: 1715491 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715621 - Posted: 19 Aug 2015, 23:59:01 UTC - in response to Message 1715491.  
Last modified: 19 Aug 2015, 23:59:27 UTC

I do understand that it's a minority opinion, though it was not the primary reason for my leaving the UK (and I suspect it wasn't your primary motivation to move there).

Use of the word "citizens" is interesting, it wasn't that long ago that the general public were considered subjects.

I didn't move here, I was brought here :-)

There's always one who wants legalese. I stated citizen for the simple fact is that I'm neither a subject or citizen, I'm a resident of long standing & appreciated the pomp & circumstance of the parades & Royal celebrations, much of which has been curtailed due to terrorism over the past 40 years.

The difference between subject of the monarchy and citizen of a nation is more than a matter of legalese, one implies rights granted from on high (and subject to removal at whim) the other has rights simply by being.

You've stated that you're a republican, so you'd much rather a President Blair rather than a monarch?

Blair would not be my first (or second or third, fourth, fifth etc) choice for holding the office of head of state, though I'd prefer an elected President Blair over an inherited QE2.

What's the difference asides from your claim that without an elected head of state, Britain is not truly democratic?

Edit: -

What do you think the cost is in maintaining & staffing the following?

Elysee Palace

The White House

Or indeed the Áras an Uachtaráin. I have no idea how much any of them cost, remember I did say "whether £300M is the right number for the price of a Head of State is not of particular interest to me", though I do take issue with the under reporting the cost of the British Monarchy, and the over reporting of how much the British Monarchy generates in terms of tourism (not that I believe a Head of State's ability to draw in tourists should be an overriding factor in any nation's choice of political system). I take it for granted that the Head of State will be publicly funded, and, if the UK were a republic its citizenry could decide just how much that funding should be.

There are many models for the role of President, for example the US and France have chosen one vested with much executive power, while Ireland and Germany have followed a different path. Personally I think the latter model (being largely ceremonial in nature) is less likely to cause significant political upheaval in the UK should it return to being a republic, though my preference is for the choice to be given to the people. The matters of importance to me are (in no particular order and by no means exhaustive):
1) anyone would be eligible to hold the office,
2) no-one would be above the law (which the British Monarch officially is)
3) Britain would stand a chance of becoming a classless society (while there's a ruling class, there will be at least one other class)
4) the Church of England could separate from the state (no unifying head of both)
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715621 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715626 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 0:09:17 UTC - in response to Message 1715331.  

I'm sure the vote would go in favor of the Queen.

Yes it would, she is the most respected Head of State in the world.

But if say Charles was the King, having taken over for her majesty.

If prince Charles was to become King, he would rule in his own right as the next Heir to the throne. Unless the Queen abdicated within her lifetime which is never likely to happen.

Oh. God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something."

And you expect to be taken seriously around here with a comment like that?

The Queen has earned the respect she gets.

Yes she has, she is the most respected Head of State in the world.

I can't think of anyone who deserves to replace her.

Prince William in time will come pretty close, but QEII is very much a one off, a modern QEI if you like in a way.

Did that really deserve repetition? And what's the basis for the assertion? Last year Fortune magazine had a different opinion (for them it was the Head of the Vatican City State).
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715626 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1715738 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 4:34:47 UTC
Last modified: 20 Aug 2015, 4:36:05 UTC

Westminster child sex abuse claims: missing pieces remain in inquiry jigsaw

It is strongly suspected that one of the reasons the original investigation was shut down was because there were members of the royal family involved.

Royal family member was investigated as part of paedophile ring before cover-up, ex-cop says
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1715738 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1715837 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 10:53:46 UTC - in response to Message 1715621.  

3) Britain would stand a chance of becoming a classless society (while there's a ruling class, there will be at least one other class)

Hardly. A classless capitalist society does not exist. You will always have people with money, and people who don't have that much money. Just because those people aren't given official titles anymore to stress the fact that they are from a higher class doesn't mean the classes will disappear and people will become equal.
ID: 1715837 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715863 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 12:16:21 UTC - in response to Message 1715800.  

Did that really deserve repetition?

In your view no, in my view yes. End of story.

Last year Fortune magazine had a different opinion (for them it was the Head of the Vatican City State).

Ah, playing the religious angle as a smoke screen! As Fortune itself said

These ­extraordinary men and women are transforming business, govern­ment, philanthropy, and so much more

I don't see any reference to Heads of State there.

Maybe not, though I'm still waiting for your source.

I have no opinion worth discussing about the members of the Royal Family,

Apparently. In which case it is a reasonable question to ask why you are posting here at all? Surely not because you just want to stir it, then sit back and watch the fun.

If the topic was about the members of the family, you might have a point. The topic and the OP gave no obvious indication that thread was restricted to views on the members, thus your accusation is baseless. How about an apology?

I mean, you have never done that before. Right?

Please provide links to thread where you believe I have acted as you suggest.If you can't, please retract that one, your ad homs are already mounting, no need to start the same tactic with me.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715863 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715864 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 12:18:30 UTC - in response to Message 1715837.  

3) Britain would stand a chance of becoming a classless society (while there's a ruling class, there will be at least one other class)

Hardly. A classless capitalist society does not exist. You will always have people with money, and people who don't have that much money. Just because those people aren't given official titles anymore to stress the fact that they are from a higher class doesn't mean the classes will disappear and people will become equal.

Note I said "would stand a chance of becoming" not "would become". While there's an institutional class, there cannot, by definition, be a classless society.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715864 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1715874 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 12:39:30 UTC - in response to Message 1715805.  

I didn't move here, I was brought here :-)

Thank you for that, I confess it is something that I didn't know before. I had, like probably many others, assumed that you had come here as an adult of your own free will. Which is why I have been so critical of your views upon UK politics. In which case I withdraw my offer of a free ticket. Not a mind reader you know!

I'm a resident of long standing & appreciated the pomp & circumstance of the parades & Royal celebrations,

I will refer to that very thing in another post. The VE and VJ parades in the UK this year particularly well done I thought.

:-)
Sunday last, I've bee here 55 years & seen many changes over those years. Life goes on & progress gets made. Unfortunately even though that progress has benefitted many, the changes have not always been for the best.

Many this past year or so have been attacking the Tories for which I can offer no defence. However, for me, it's been the "Islington Gang" that set this country down it's current path, & similar to their past colleagues from the 70's. May 7th this year proved that & the current fight for their leadership shows just how bad the "Islington Gang" will go to secure their wealth.

Yuppies & BHL's whinging about the Royal Family & their wealth & demanding that wealth should be redistributed, while at the same time, hoarding their own & decrying any one lesser than them for doing so.

@Bobby, expected much better from you. Blair as president was an example & in my book, a fitting one.

Chris, several points here that are not intended as a personal attack - just pointing out some "discrepancies"

5 posts on the trot? tut, tut, tut :-)
I know that you can post sensibly, however, you come across as defending your views which is good as many out there do not have the courage to stand by their convictions. You do however, tend to disparage those who in your view, are stupid or what you feel are out to stir. Your posting style shows clearly that you have the ability to answer those without having to resort to nastiness.

It would be nice if you stopped that, but that's down to you.
ID: 1715874 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1715894 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 13:29:40 UTC - in response to Message 1715874.  

@Bobby, expected much better from you. Blair as president was an example & in my book, a fitting one.

Sorry to disappoint, though I'm not sure what better means in this context, I intended to answer your question as succinctly as I could. I'm not sure why you picked Blair, seems to me he would not win any election held today.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1715894 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1715900 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 13:37:03 UTC - in response to Message 1715864.  

Note I said "would stand a chance of becoming" not "would become". While there's an institutional class, there cannot, by definition, be a classless society.

True, but that is why getting rid of the monarchy doesn't matter. Capitalism has institutionalized class just as much as the monarchy does, so getting rid of the monarchy doesn't mean you get rid of institutional class.
ID: 1715900 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1715901 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 13:38:21 UTC - in response to Message 1715894.  

@Bobby, expected much better from you. Blair as president was an example & in my book, a fitting one.

Sorry to disappoint, though I'm not sure what better means in this context, I intended to answer your question as succinctly as I could. I'm not sure why you picked Blair, seems to me he would not win any election held today.

Really? Where have you been for the past 18 years? Stuck in a crevice?
ID: 1715901 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1715902 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 13:39:42 UTC - in response to Message 1715900.  

Note I said "would stand a chance of becoming" not "would become". While there's an institutional class, there cannot, by definition, be a classless society.

True, but that is why getting rid of the monarchy doesn't matter. Capitalism has institutionalized class just as much as the monarchy does, so getting rid of the monarchy doesn't mean you get rid of institutional class.

Much better answer than my rambling about the "Islington Gang" so a well deserved +1.
ID: 1715902 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1715905 - Posted: 20 Aug 2015, 13:49:22 UTC - in response to Message 1715903.  

The "Islington Gang" is a new one on me, and I would appreciate further clarification upon that. If it is a political dissident group I ought to know about it, and I'm not sure that I do.

Highbury & Islington was for many years a slightly run down area but perfectly liveable with a great community.

Tony Blair changed all that, now it's full of "Blairites & Labour cronies" with attitudes similar to Russell Brand.

I'm surprised you've never heard of it as it has been mentioned numerous times over the years via the media.
ID: 1715905 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The British Royal Family


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.