Liverpool FC Forum

[yckatbjywtbiastkamb]

All laws (otherwise known as legislations) are passed by the queen, although the politicians agree as to whether the bill is passed through ultimately it is the queen who decides.

Ultimately it is.....and it isn't.

The monarch does sign the laws passed by Parliament, but it's a ceremonial function. The chances that he/she would refuse to sign a decision made by Parliament are pretty much non-existent. Possible, but highly unlikely.

The monarchy isn't just here to attract tourists, but there's also an argument to be made supporting the concept of a head of state who is apolitical, who in theory represents the nation as a whole, above and beyond political lines. This is as opposed to the U.S. system for example, where just over half the people of the country love the head of state (the president) and think he's been sent by god, and the other side of the electorate hate him with a passion. While it's true that some in the UK would prefer a republic, they always tend to be a relatively small segment, compared to the pro-monarchy side (which includes me).

The reason hijackers can come here and claim asylum is down to a government staffed by lawyers, who have a vested interest in passing vague laws and legal conventions which challenge or weaken the courts and their ability to function, creating a "human rights/compensation" culture which lawyers can exploit for profit, regardless of the consequences to British society.

With the honours system, QEII is given a list by the politicians and they are the ones who decides who gets what. I would find it very hard to believe that the Queen decided one day that Barry Ferguson had made a significant contribution to her realm and deserved an award.

apolitical ?
your having a laugh arent you?
the royals and their establishment lackies are about as tory as you get mate.
you saw what those german freeloaders thought of the working classes back when we owned most of the world but still had people starving to death on rat infested streets or slaving away in workhouses.

[account deleted by request]

All laws (otherwise known as legislations) are passed by the queen, although the politicians agree as to whether the bill is passed through ultimately it is the queen who decides.

Ultimately it is.....and it isn't.

The monarch does sign the laws passed by Parliament, but it's a ceremonial function. The chances that he/she would refuse to sign a decision made by Parliament are pretty much non-existent. Possible, but highly unlikely.

The monarchy isn't just here to attract tourists, but there's also an argument to be made supporting the concept of a head of state who is apolitical, who in theory represents the nation as a whole, above and beyond political lines. This is as opposed to the U.S. system for example, where just over half the people of the country love the head of state (the president) and think he's been sent by god, and the other side of the electorate hate him with a passion. While it's true that some in the UK would prefer a republic, they always tend to be a relatively small segment, compared to the pro-monarchy side (which includes me).

The reason hijackers can come here and claim asylum is down to a government staffed by lawyers, who have a vested interest in passing vague laws and legal conventions which challenge or weaken the courts and their ability to function, creating a "human rights/compensation" culture which lawyers can exploit for profit, regardless of the consequences to British society.

With the honours system, QEII is given a list by the politicians and they are the ones who decides who gets what. I would find it very hard to believe that the Queen decided one day that Barry Ferguson had made a significant contribution to her realm and deserved an award.

apolitical ?
your having a laugh arent you?
the royals and their establishment lackies are about as tory as you get mate.
you saw what those german freeloaders thought of the working classes back when we owned most of the world but still had people starving to death on rat infested streets or slaving away in workhouses.

yckatbjywtbiastkamb I couldnt agree more mate

[The Manhattan Project]

apolitical ?
your having a laugh arent you?
the royals and their establishment lackies are about as tory as you get mate.
you saw what those german freeloaders thought of the working classes back when we owned most of the world but still had people starving to death on rat infested streets or slaving away in workhouses.

And using kids as chimney sweeps eh?

No, I'm not having a laugh. "Apolitical" in the sense of not belonging to a specific political party, like President Bush belongs to the GOP. The monarch might be part of the same kind of social class that traditional Tory voters gravitate towards and originate from, but technically the monarch has no political affiliation.

It's true they represent an aristocratic level of society, but often so does the government. The highest levels of governance in a civilised nation will always tend to be drawn from an "elite", whether that's by birth, social class, wealth, education, intelligentsia etc...

And rightly so, because I wouldn't want a Michael Carroll as Prime Minister or President.

[Kharhaz]

Well peewee my arguments are just my opinions, and are not always agreed with by everybody but ive yet to see a sensible argument from you as to why im wrong and you know what? i probably wont, not from you in any event

[Kharhaz]

Unfortunately you must be wrong manhatten because as judge said
"the law is made by commoners elected to parliament matey"

And theres me who doesnt know how to read

[The Manhattan Project]

He's right.

The House Of "Commons".

They are elected and ultimately create laws.

The monarch simply gives a ceremonial stamp of approval.

[Judge]

He's right.

The House Of "Commons".

They are elected and ultimately create laws.

The monarch simply gives a ceremonial stamp of approval.

ner ner ner kharkaz

[112-1077774096]

Well peewee my arguments are just my opinions, and are not always agreed with by everybody but ive yet to see a sensible argument from you as to why im wrong and you know what? i probably wont, not from you in any event

then i suggest you read the thread from the start, if you do that you will see my opinion in all its clarity

[Judge]

Well peewee my arguments are just my opinions, and are not always agreed with by everybody but ive yet to see a sensible argument from you as to why im wrong and you know what? i probably wont, not from you in any event

then i suggest you read the thread from the start, if you do that you will see my opinion in all its clarity

LPA all over again

[112-1077774096]

Well peewee my arguments are just my opinions, and are not always agreed with by everybody but ive yet to see a sensible argument from you as to why im wrong and you know what? i probably wont, not from you in any event

then i suggest you read the thread from the start, if you do that you will see my opinion in all its clarity

LPA all over again

thats what i thought but then the joining date doesnt make sense

[Judge]

Well peewee my arguments are just my opinions, and are not always agreed with by everybody but ive yet to see a sensible argument from you as to why im wrong and you know what? i probably wont, not from you in any event

then i suggest you read the thread from the start, if you do that you will see my opinion in all its clarity

LPA all over again

thats what i thought but then the joining date doesnt make sense

perhaps LPA has been here longer than you think.

plus he may have forgotten his old password for kharkaz, then remembered it ?? perhaps/maybe

[yckatbjywtbiastkamb]

apolitical ?
your having a laugh arent you?
the royals and their establishment lackies are about as tory as you get mate.
you saw what those german freeloaders thought of the working classes back when we owned most of the world but still had people starving to death on rat infested streets or slaving away in workhouses.

And using kids as chimney sweeps eh?

No, I'm not having a laugh. "Apolitical" in the sense of not belonging to a specific political party, like President Bush belongs to the GOP. The monarch might be part of the same kind of social class that traditional Tory voters gravitate towards and originate from, but technically the monarch has no political affiliation.

It's true they represent an aristocratic level of society, but often so does the government. The highest levels of governance in a civilised nation will always tend to be drawn from an "elite", whether that's by birth, social class, wealth, education, intelligentsia etc...

And rightly so, because I wouldn't want a Michael Carroll as Prime Minister or President.

the answer is simple mate, you want them - then you pay for them.
no tourist visits liverpool to see anything romotely to do with the royals so why should we fund a london tourist attraction?
the shops up here see no royal tourist dollars.
hard working people work their @rses off and pay tax to supplement their lavish lifestyles and we even pay for someone to dress the lazy gits of a morning.
just because they changed their name from saxe -coburg gotha to windsor during the first world war doesnt fool me, they are the last clan of a bunch of central european freeloaders that latched onto nearly every country in the northern hemisphere but all the other countries got onto the scam years ago.
one cousin ran one country, another cousin ran another, a uncle ran another again etc, etc. laziness knows no boundary`s it seems.

[The Manhattan Project]

the answer is simple mate, you want them - then you pay for them.

No worries, I'll pay my 62p.

no tourist visits liverpool to see anything romotely to do with the royals so why should we fund a london tourist attraction?
the shops up here see no royal tourist dollars.

Because the country is regarded as a whole. All part of a greater economy. Using your logic I could ask "why should the people of London, or Birmingham, or Leeds etc pay taxes that are used in Liverpool if they don't live in Liverpool?". But hey, if Liverpool wants to become a independent city state, good luck to them.

hard working people work their @rses off and pay tax to supplement their lavish lifestyles and we even pay for someone to dress the lazy gits of a morning.

Even if they didn't exist, you'd still be working your off to pay tax to supplement a president. It costs $35,000 an hour to maintain Air Force One, not to mention the costs of supplying a president with transport, accomodation, administration, security, support staff, communications equipment, armoured cars etc....I'm sure a British president would be expensive too. If you have a head of state, you have to pay for him/her. Whether it's a president or a monarch.

just because they changed their name from saxe -coburg gotha to windsor during the first world war doesnt fool me, they are the last clan of a bunch of central european freeloaders that latched onto nearly every country in the northern hemisphere but all the other countries got onto the scam years ago.
one cousin ran one country, another cousin ran another, a uncle ran another again etc, etc. laziness knows no boundary`s it seems.

Doesn't matter. Humans throughout history have moved from one place to another to settle or control. It's nothing new. The average English person is of Anglo-Saxon stock who came to this island from Germanic lands, so the present royal family is no different. They simply came here relatively recently.

[Kharhaz]

Although i didnt realise it at the time Judge and Peewee must be school buddys, ive seen your original thread peewee and still theres no case. At least manhattan shows some kind of knowledge in what he says

[yckatbjywtbiastkamb]

Although i didnt realise it at the time Judge and Peewee must be school buddys, ive seen your original thread peewee and still theres no case. At least manhattan shows some kind of knowledge in what he says

listening to manhatten on this subject is just like listening to the uber tory`s on question time when this issue arises.
its all very well quoting 62 pence`s and air force ones but the point is not the fact we have to pay for our leaders, its the fact we must have the right to choose our leaders.
in this day and age, the fact that someone has a position of power due to the fact his or her parents held the same position is an outrage.
the establishment has been anti liverpool since the irish came here in numbers, and the fact that since the days of the english civil war and prince rupert only one british city has had the british army (or in this case the navy) point its guns at it proves it.
it was during the dock strike in the early 1900`s and the king himself wrote to churchill ` the situation in liverpool is more of a revolution than a strike`.