pillred Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 Just now, Sheltons Army said: Do you know if it’s on the red button NR ? Really? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmNick Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 In the garden and can hear GSTQ ringing out from Ashton gate. What a shame it wasn't coming from city fans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said: Do you know if it’s on the red button NR ? Robins TV only I think. Downsy doing buildup. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Northern Red said: Funeral now confirmed as Monday 19th September. That should, if common sense prevails, mean a full programme both in midweek and next weekend. Only exception here could be London clubs games as there will be intense logistics/security needed in preparation for the funeral. The BBC revert to “normal” programming tomorrow evening. If they’re the bell weather of what we should do, then no reason why normal activities shouldn’t resume across the board. Anecdotally, being over the shops today it was hugely busy as people just seemed to want to get out. I get the impression that people are “griefed out” already (to be fair, how many times can you watch the same footage) and although no doubt some people remain upset, there are a large number for whom that doesn’t apply. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, Northern Red said: Robins TV only I think. Downsy doing buildup. Toby on comms and Ali Hines as Co-comm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamski Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 10 hours ago, BTRFTG said: I think you'll find the main justification for 'Monarchy' these past 3 centuries is it appears to deliver constitutional and political stability it, after all, meaning 'the rule of the many by the one for the purpose of good'. Look at the remaining 46 monarchies around the globe and they tend to be decent, peaceful and prosperous places to reside. When monarchies fall they're invariably replaced by President Republics or Confederations. A quick scan of the major Presidencies of late doesn't exactly promote the concept: Trump , Biden, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Bolsanaro, Kim Jong-un, Salih, al-Assad, Maduro. Add in just about any African nation, ex-Soviet state and central American dictatorship, consider security, conflict, economic stability and personal liberty and monarchy wins out by a mile. That's not to say the present form of the UK Royal Family should remain, rather their very function within the constitution should be preserved and for good reason, it provides an essential buffer to political extremism and stasis. As I mentioned elsewhere, if folks bothered to review the Royals funding position rather than fixate on the Privy Purse, as anti-monarchists so love to do, they'll see The Exchequer receives far, far more in revenue from them than is paid back and that's before any 'benefit' to UKPLC's economy is considered. As for Charles having 'leached out' fortunes from the Duchy of Cornwall (I assume you also include his other income streams,) its worth noting he's cost the taxpayer nothing, has paid all his own costs and voluntarily paid top rate income tax on all surplus (he didn't have to.) As per your suggestion he may subsidise his existence from 'The Duchy' he can't, its no longer his. He will, however, and as with ERII, more than pay his own way given all that he has inherited by way of income streams is paid to The Exchequer. But when I say 'he has inherited' I really should have said 'the function has inhetited,' for that's what it is. A functional, not personal, existence. The accounts are public record. Presidents BTW, do not come cheap. Amazing how many have PERSONALLY become the richest people in the world. Unlike monarchs that wealth doesn't transfer to the next in line, preserved ultimately for a nation's benefit. It sits in personal bank accounts around the globe. Thank you, some very interesting views and presumptions to consider/research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillred Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 13 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said: Do you know if it’s on the red button NR ? If that was, I hope an attempt at humour I'm afraid it has spectacularly failed, and why you gave me a Hmm reaction is beyond me. I have a feeling a lot of people will agree it was in very poor taste. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 10 minutes ago, IAmNick said: In the garden and can hear GSTQ ringing out from Ashton gate. What a shame it wasn't coming from city fans! GSTK, hopefully ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFCGav Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, pillred said: If that was, I hope an attempt at humour I'm afraid it has spectacularly failed, and why you gave me a Hmm reaction is beyond me. I have a feeling a lot of people will agree it was in very poor taste. Look, it’s truly sad the Queen passed. But she passed peacefully at 96 years old surrounded by family - literally in her castle. I’m finding this forced sadness thing a bit silly. It’s good to keep our humour, life can be so bleak and cruel, we’ve all got so many stresses. Let’s stick together and keep smiling. Not a dig at all Pill, just thought I’d share my thoughts 12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, pillred said: If that was, I hope an attempt at humour I'm afraid it has spectacularly failed, and why you gave me a Hmm reaction is beyond me. I have a feeling a lot of people will agree it was in very poor taste. Christ man, calm down. He clearly wasn’t belittling or mocking the Queen, he was making a joke over the forum always asking if any event is on the red button. If he’s not allowed to do that because the Queens died, we just as all well pack up and go home 6 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colombo Robin Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 6 minutes ago, pillred said: If that was, I hope an attempt at humour I'm afraid it has spectacularly failed, and why you gave me a Hmm reaction is beyond me. I have a feeling a lot of people will agree it was in very poor taste. Has humour also been cancelled for today? Lighten up 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillred Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 1 minute ago, Colombo Robin said: Has humour also been cancelled for today? Lighten up I know what he was doing, if you thought it was humorous well we obviously have very different ideas of what is funny. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 7 minutes ago, Colombo Robin said: Has humour also been cancelled for today? Lighten up No, it’s on in the sports bar after the rugby finishes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillred Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Davefevs said: No, it’s on in the sports bar after the rugby finishes! That's not going well at the moment what has happened to Bristol bears hard to believe only two years ago they finished top. 6 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colombo Robin Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 18 minutes ago, pillred said: I know what he was doing, if you thought it was humorous well we obviously have very different ideas of what is funny. Honestly i'm confused. What was he doing other than making an innocent joke? Christ I hope the football returns quickly 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 6 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said: Funny thread - good on them. We tried this, technically ok to happen but they can’t use an FA ref and they won’t be covered by insurance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, MarcusX said: We tried this, technically ok to happen but they can’t use an FA ref and they won’t be covered by insurance Technically incorrect. The FA guidance confirmed “no friendlies but training ok”. Within minutes of our game being cancelled we were offered a friendly but turned it down as we would have got in big trouble. Even training is/would be a risk - you never know who’s passing and what they may say/do. Nonsense decision but it’s happened now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 2 hours ago, pongo88 said: The most ridiculous of all - the Met Office said it would be scaling back its weather forecasts during the time of national mourning! Did you read what they actually said or just repeating the social media rhetoric? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 10 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Technically incorrect. The FA guidance confirmed “no friendlies but training ok”. Within minutes of our game being cancelled we were offered a friendly but turned it down as we would have got in big trouble. Even training is/would be a risk - you never know who’s passing and what they may say/do. Nonsense decision but it’s happened now. Probably shouldn’t have said technically, wrong word (again). What I mean is what you suggest, but there’s nothing in theory to stop 22 lads turning up at a park and playing football. Our Sunday team tomorrow is doing an inter game friendly. We’ll call it a training session and if anyone really makes a fuss we’ll say it’s just a group of lads who fancied a kick about over the park… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRFTG Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 7 minutes ago, red panda said: Lots of people seem to have been agreeing, so I'll take up the challenge. Just to put my cards on the table, I am not in any way anti-royal. They bring a lot of pleasure to many people in the country, they are great for tourism, and they are mostly harmless. I was surprised myself how sad I felt on Thursday. However ... I'm sorry but your argument doesn't stack up. You've cherry picked a few examples of bad presidents, but that doesn't prove a thing. Nothing personal, but I'm amazed you put forward these arguments in the very week that a new UK PM has been sworn in, elected by a few thousand totally unrepresentative morons and not even the first choice of her own MPs, and she looks likely to introduce new policies that are quite different from the manifesto on which the current government was elected. Do you really think that's a good system. I certainly don't. You make a number of points, as have others, that merely suggest you've a poor understanding of how the UK is governed, its very Constitution, that being the subject of my post. As was attested today, Parliament serves the Monarch yet the Monarch consents to obey the will of the people as reflected through members elected. The Monarch inherits great wealth, but offers it all back to Parliament in return for sufficient funds to discharge the Monarch's state functions. In the UK, at National (Parliamentary) election, one doesn't vote for a party, one elects an individual to represent one in a first past the post ballot. The individual elected owes no allegiance to any party nor the policies they promote, as evidenced by MPs being able to vote against party whips to which they might profess allegiance or by them 'crossing the floor' as they see fit. They do not have to adhere to the wishes of their constituents, once elected they've free reign to do as they wish. The largest group of like-minded MPs (usually a political party) is invited by the Monarch to form a Government. Should the largest group be a political party its for its membership to decide who both their leader and PM should be (usually the same but it doesn't have to be.) Parties have their internal procudeures as to how this is discharged. In the case of political manifestos there's no obligation on that elected to Government to fulfill any if its promises. For various reasons most commitments are never delivered. In which case the majority of your second paragraph is nugatory. Fair to criticize if you think the system flawed (as do I,) but you snipe and carp as though there's been connivance and wrong-doing this week when all you describe is how the system is prescribed to work. The opening to your second paragraph hasn't been 'cherry-picked' and is a pragmatic demonstration as to why tinkering with the UK's model constitution isn't necessarily a good thing, even should some consider wholly elected bodies to be in some way 'more' democratic (sic). If you've ever spent time in Parliament you quickly realise having a second, non-elected chamber isn't such a bad thing. As with the Monarch, the elected peoples will must always triumph, but what the non-elected body is able to do is to consider and influence legislation it is tasked to consider, importantly not always from a politically partizan angle. Contrast nations who've tinkered our constitution, USA is a fine example. There you've 3 wholly elected functions (Executive, Senate and House,) all on different election cycles and split proportion of election, and they've ended up with stasis. Usually the President, laughably called the most powerful person in the world but who in reality isn't even the most powerful person in Washington, ends up delivering little (or what gets delivered is instantly annulled within a couple of years.) As there, a good comparison here are National and Local elections where historically the party in Government gets thrashed by its opposition come Local elections. All that does is make delivering benefits of policy to the people more difficult and antagonistic, Local power thwarting National policy whether or not its for the best. Tit for tat politics. Without question there is a signal difference between the continuity of Monarchy, where the incumbent is a function not an individual (hence the affirmations of allegiance required today.) Matters not palaces, jewels and crowns, they're functions of state, not for sale. They exist on behalf of us subjects. For that reason it matters little a Monarch is for life (or until they abdicate,) unlike many Republics where Presidents, once elected, have enacted legislation that may never see them (in some cases their chosen successors,) removed from office. Ditto wealth. What was ours through ERII becomes ours through CRIII. Contrast the likes of Putin. A President paid around $130k per annum who in the past decade has amassed a personal wealth in excess of $200bn, no need to declare or explain, no questions asked (unless one is unafraid of poisons and falls from great height.) Our Constitution is far from perfect, but on balance its hard to think how immediately it might signally be improved given the present poverty of political understanding and debate in our nations. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltons Army Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 1 hour ago, pillred said: If that was, I hope an attempt at humour I'm afraid it has spectacularly failed, and why you gave me a Hmm reaction is beyond me. I have a feeling a lot of people will agree it was in very poor taste. Really ? No humour , just moping around is it, a mega mourn ...for how long ? Bit like your normal match day mood and posts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillred Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said: Really ? No humour , just moping around is it, a mega mourn ...for how long ? Bit like your normal match day mood and posts My my feeling a little embarrassed are we? I would be willing to bet my stats on replies and reactions is far better than yours pro rata, never realised you analysed my posts in such great detail me I have better things to do. I just called you out for making a flippant remark and you don't like it well hard luck. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltons Army Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 Just now, pillred said: My my feeling a little embarrassed are we? I would be willing to bet my stats on replies and reactions is far better than yours pro rata, never realised you analysed my posts in such great detail me I have better things to do. I just called you out for making a flippant remark and you don't like it well hard luck. Embarrassed ? Not one jot , you keep wallowing As for ‘My stats on replies and reactions is better than yours pro data ‘ Wow.....just wow......... Whatever's important to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 24 minutes ago, BTRFTG said: If you've ever spent time in Parliament you quickly realise having a second, non-elected chamber isn't such a bad thing. As with the Monarch, the elected peoples will must always triumph, but what the non-elected body is able to do is to consider and influence legislation it is tasked to consider, importantly not always from a politically partizan angle. Contrast nations who've tinkered our constitution, USA is a fine example. There you've 3 wholly elected functions (Executive, Senate and House,) all on different election cycles and split proportion of election, and they've ended up with stasis. Usually the President, laughably called the most powerful person in the world but who in reality isn't even the most powerful person in Washington, ends up delivering little (or what gets delivered is instantly annulled within a couple of years.) This is the key for me. Wonderfully worded arguments by the way. I've been wanting to write similar but couldn't put it so succinctly. Reform the monarchy and HoL. Yes. Abolish and replace it? Shortsighted in my opinion. Watch the proclamation today and you see that it's a deal. The monarch rules, but they also serve, the privy council support, but they also hold the monarch to account. There is balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 (edited) 38 minutes ago, pillred said: My my feeling a little embarrassed are we? I would be willing to bet my stats on replies and reactions is far better than yours pro rata, never realised you analysed my posts in such great detail me I have better things to do. I just called you out for making a flippant remark and you don't like it well hard luck. Just because the bold statement may be the most arseholish thing I’ve seen on here… @Sheltons Army 3935 posts, 6676 reputation = 1.7 reactions per post @pillred 5591 posts, 3548 reputation = 0.6 reactions per post So, even allowing for some of those reactions being negative, I think not only is that statement not the reason this forum exists, but also totally incorrect. Edited September 10, 2022 by Silvio Dante 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 13 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Just because the bold statement may be the most arseholish thing I’ve seen on here… @Sheltons Army 3935 posts, 6676 reputation = 1.7 reactions per post @pillred 5591 posts, 3548 reputation = 0.6 reactions per post So, even allowing for some of those reactions being negative, I think not only is that statement not the reason this forum exists, but also totally incorrect. * doesn't account for reactions! Those were the days 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillred Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 14 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Just because the bold statement may be the most arseholish thing I’ve seen on here… @Sheltons Army 3935 posts, 6676 reputation = 1.7 reactions per post @pillred 5591 posts, 3548 reputation = 0.6 reactions per post So, even allowing for some of those reactions being negative, I think not only is that statement not the reason this forum exists, but also totally incorrect. I was talking about laugh reactions he said I posted gloomy posts, the number of laugh reactions I get would suggest otherwise, and what the hell has it got to do with you anyway? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 EFL - if you’re reading this thread….bring the football back, pleeeeeeeeease. 2 1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, pillred said: I was talking about laugh reactions he said I posted gloomy posts, the number of laugh reactions I get would suggest otherwise, and what the hell has it got to do with you anyway? Okay… You’ve received 581 laugh reactions in 5591 posts, so a tittering average of 0.1 laughs per post He’s received 1372 laugh reactions in 3935 posts, so a roaring average of 0.3 laughs per post. You said, and I quote, “I would be willing to bet my stats on replies and reactions are better than yours pro rata”. They’re not. Either on the collective or on your revised laugh metric. As to what it’s got to do with me? Frankly nothing. But I hate people making a statement on an absolute basis when it can be proven as false. All I’m doing is fact checking. If you don’t like that, don’t make claims that can be checked. 4 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted September 10, 2022 Report Share Posted September 10, 2022 1 hour ago, MarcusX said: Probably shouldn’t have said technically, wrong word (again). What I mean is what you suggest, but there’s nothing in theory to stop 22 lads turning up at a park and playing football. Our Sunday team tomorrow is doing an inter game friendly. We’ll call it a training session and if anyone really makes a fuss we’ll say it’s just a group of lads who fancied a kick about over the park… We’re doing the same… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.