Liverpool FC Forum

by **Effes** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:40 am

yckatbjywtbiastkamb wrote:
Kharhaz wrote: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`.

This sound like that scene in The Holy Grail when Michael Palin is givin it loads to King Arthur while stacking mud.

by **112-1077774096** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:01 am

Kharhaz wrote: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

origional thread, i think you mean post.

again i think you have probably not read it. my position is made clear. i can take or leave the royals but i do believe they do more good for the country than harm and so i dont see why the anti royals complain.

so we get rid of the royals then you will find something else to complain about. the royals do work for their money with oficial functions, the queen at here age probably works harder than you kharhaz. so what if they inherit money, i will when my parents die so should we et rid of me also.

i think the argument is futile to be honest. if the royals ever do me or the country any harm then i may change my opinion, but whinging because they have money and are from a different social class is pathetic really

by **hwangeruk** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:43 am

How funny, scousers being left wing, what a novel idea.

Dumb labour voting socialists believe they "really understand".
They very often believe in conspiracy theories and that the others have what they want from priviledge and thats the reason they are impoverished. Its an easy cop out from being useless. The royal family really aren't very rich at all in a modern context. (see bottom illustration)

BTW: Of the 1,000 people on the (Times 1000 Rich) list, 750 are self-made, so there goes the "its all inherited money" tosh that so many grumling lefties spout out, and haters of the royals.

I was at a football club disco a month or so ago. A couple of drunk fathers of the same team as my kid rolled up, clearly arguing with each. :censored:

they said "shhh shhh" to each other then one asked me, who do you vote for.

I said "I am working class". He turns to his mate and says "see, see".. then I say "tory" which burst his little bubble as he was expecting me to say Labour. He says, "you're working class, you like football" he was amazed. Its that simplistic, moronic, The Sun reading ignorance that keeps Tony Blair in power after wastings Billions in windfalls from 3G and 120+ tax rises with no improvement to public services.

Just for your brainless information, the UK GDP for 2005 was approx 1,800 Billion.The government tax us about 500 Billion. The royal household gets about 7.9 Million (2005), 70% of which is for staff pay (which employs your friend the servant) and much of the rest is spent on royal engagements, to promote Great Britain. So, even if we ignore that and just take the lump sum, thats 0.000158 % of national tax income.

The Queen does have valuable assets such as the crown jewells, but "we" the British public pay a very small amount to their role.
To give you some idea, 25 Million people visit this country every year, and generates 71 Billion in income. World wide tourism accounts for more than cars and oil. If the Queens promotion of our country is only 1% of the total for UK tourism, then that covers what we pay the household. And as its paying for people to be employed (the staff), gives us a political neutral head of state (even if you dumbo's believe she is a closet Tory, she still weilds no parlimentary power in that respect) helps us keep our national identity, then long may the royal family exist.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:45 am

listening to manhatten on this subject is just like listening to the uber tory`s on question time when this issue arises.

I agree, I love hearing people with informed opinions.

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.

All practical power lies with those who are elected. The PM (an elected MP) and the Cabinet (elected MP's for the most part aside from Falconer who owes his position to nepotism), and people rising to power due to parentage is nothing new. It happens in countless areas of society, regardless of whether they are monarchies or republics.

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`.

It's certainly true that Liverpool is one of the poorest areas of the UK in terms of economy, but that is a condition caused by bad government, rather than whether the head of state is a president or not.

by **Judge** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:35 am

peewee wrote:
Kharhaz wrote: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

origional thread, i think you mean post.

again i think you have probably not read it. my position is made clear. i can take or leave the royals but i do believe they do more good for the country than harm and so i dont see why the anti royals complain.

so we get rid of the royals then you will find something else to complain about. the royals do work for their money with oficial functions, the queen at here age probably works harder than you kharhaz. so what if they inherit money, i will when my parents die so should we et rid of me also.

i think the argument is futile to be honest. if the royals ever do me or the country any harm then i may change my opinion, but whinging because they have money and are from a different social class is pathetic really

me and peewee are school buddies ??

no matey, i went to a good school

, peewee skived all the time - never knew him

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:47 am

hwangeruk wrote:How funny, scousers being left wing, what a novel idea.

Dumb labour voting socialists believe they "really understand".
They very often believe in conspiracy theories and that the others have what they want from priviledge and thats the reason they are impoverished. Its an easy cop out from being useless. The royal family really aren't very rich at all in a modern context. (see bottom illustration)

BTW: Of the 1,000 people on the (Times 1000 Rich) list, 750 are self-made, so there goes the "its all inherited money" tosh that so many grumling lefties spout out, and haters of the royals.

I was at a football club disco a month or so ago. A couple of drunk fathers of the same team as my kid rolled up, clearly arguing with each. they said "shhh shhh" to each other then one asked me, who do you vote for.

I said "I am working class". He turns to his mate and says "see, see".. then I say "tory" which burst his little bubble as he was expecting me to say Labour. He says, "you're working class, you like football" he was amazed. Its that simplistic, moronic, The Sun reading ignorance that keeps Tony Blair in power after wastings Billions in windfalls from 3G and 120+ tax rises with no improvement to public services.

Just for your brainless information, the UK GDP for 2005 was approx 1,800 Billion.The government tax us about 500 Billion. The royal household gets about 7.9 Million (2005), 70% of which is for staff pay (which employs your friend the servant) and much of the rest is spent on royal engagements, to promote Great Britain. So, even if we ignore that and just take the lump sum, thats 0.000158 % of national tax income.

The Queen does have valuable assets such as the crown jewells, but "we" the British public pay a very small amount to their role.
To give you some idea, 25 Million people visit this country every year, and generates 71 Billion in income. World wide tourism accounts for more than cars and oil. If the Queens promotion of our country is only 1% of the total for UK tourism, then that covers what we pay the household. And as its paying for people to be employed (the staff), gives us a political neutral head of state (even if you dumbo's believe she is a closet Tory, she still weilds no parlimentary power in that respect) helps us keep our national identity, then long may the royal family exist.

WTF for a first post :laugh:

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:35 am

Ciggy wrote:
hwangeruk wrote:How funny, scousers being left wing, what a novel idea.

Dumb labour voting socialists believe they "really understand".
They very often believe in conspiracy theories and that the others have what they want from priviledge and thats the reason they are impoverished. Its an easy cop out from being useless. The royal family really aren't very rich at all in a modern context. (see bottom illustration)

BTW: Of the 1,000 people on the (Times 1000 Rich) list, 750 are self-made, so there goes the "its all inherited money" tosh that so many grumling lefties spout out, and haters of the royals.

I was at a football club disco a month or so ago. A couple of drunk fathers of the same team as my kid rolled up, clearly arguing with each. they said "shhh shhh" to each other then one asked me, who do you vote for.

I said "I am working class". He turns to his mate and says "see, see".. then I say "tory" which burst his little bubble as he was expecting me to say Labour. He says, "you're working class, you like football" he was amazed. Its that simplistic, moronic, The Sun reading ignorance that keeps Tony Blair in power after wastings Billions in windfalls from 3G and 120+ tax rises with no improvement to public services.

Just for your brainless information, the UK GDP for 2005 was approx 1,800 Billion.The government tax us about 500 Billion. The royal household gets about 7.9 Million (2005), 70% of which is for staff pay (which employs your friend the servant) and much of the rest is spent on royal engagements, to promote Great Britain. So, even if we ignore that and just take the lump sum, thats 0.000158 % of national tax income.

The Queen does have valuable assets such as the crown jewells, but "we" the British public pay a very small amount to their role.
To give you some idea, 25 Million people visit this country every year, and generates 71 Billion in income. World wide tourism accounts for more than cars and oil. If the Queens promotion of our country is only 1% of the total for UK tourism, then that covers what we pay the household. And as its paying for people to be employed (the staff), gives us a political neutral head of state (even if you dumbo's believe she is a closet Tory, she still weilds no parlimentary power in that respect) helps us keep our national identity, then long may the royal family exist.

WTF for a first post

yeah, i think prince charles has logged in. cracking post. its obvious this guy or girl has just joined to post this one post

by **bigmick** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:17 am

It's a shame this thread went the way it did. In a way it is indicative of the slight lull the forum is going through at the moment. This constant ridiculing of an other persons position just becomes a bit tiring at times. References to posters living on council-estates, sarcastic remarks about working class scousers and urging others to go and read a book do no credit to the poster nor to the case they are aiming to represent.
I made it clear in the early stages of this thread that I am no royalist and have very little time for the institution as a whole. It then follows by defination that I believe those who are in favour of a monarchy are broadly mistaken, though of course what you replace it with is the unanswerable conundrum which will no doubt maintain the injustice of the system long beyond my lifetime. This flawed notion however that all non-royalists are dole-dwelling council house troskyites is simply untrue however and my suspicion is that the gentleman who implied as such is well aware of the fact.
What irks me most though is that I don't think the people who disagree with me are idiots, nor do I seek to belittle their point of view. They are as entitled to theirs as I am to mine. The reality is of course that nobody on heres view makes a blind bit of difference to the overall scheme of things so it's all p!ss and wind anyhow.
This debate though goes the same way as the frankly bizarre OOTer debate on various other threads. It's just as silly to pretend that non-Liverpool people have quite the same passion for the city and it's football club as died in the wool scousers, as it is to take the stance when somebody doesn't agree with your opinion of John Arne Riise that as they don't go to the games their point of view is irrelavent. It's just plain daft and I find the dismissive attitude of people, on this thread and others unnecessarily rude.
If you want to be a royalist that's lovely, crack on but try listening to and respecting other peoples opinions. Be nice, you might like it.

by **Effes** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:24 am

bigmick wrote:It's a shame this thread went the way it did. In a way it is indicative of the slight lull the forum is going through at the moment. This constant ridiculing of an other persons position just becomes a bit tiring at times. References to posters living on council-estates, sarcastic remarks about working class scousers and urging others to go and read a book do no credit to the poster nor to the case they are aiming to represent.
I made it clear in the early stages of this thread that I am no royalist and have very little time for the institution as a whole. It then follows by defination that I believe those who are in favour of a monarchy are broadly mistaken, though of course what you replace it with is the unanswerable conundrum which will no doubt maintain the injustice of the system long beyond my lifetime. This flawed notion however that all non-royalists are dole-dwelling council house troskyites is simply untrue however and my suspicion is that the gentleman who implied as such is well aware of the fact.
What irks me most though is that I don't think the people who disagree with me are idiots, nor do I seek to belittle their point of view. They are as entitled to theirs as I am to mine. The reality is of course that nobody on heres view makes a blind bit of difference to the overall scheme of things so it's all p!ss and wind anyhow.
This debate though goes the same way as the frankly bizarre OOTer debate on various other threads. It's just as silly to pretend that non-Liverpool people have quite the same passion for the city and it's football club as died in the wool scousers, as it is to take the stance when somebody doesn't agree with your opinion of John Arne Riise that as they don't go to the games their point of view is irrelavent. It's just plain daft and I find the dismissive attitude of people, on this thread and others unnecessarily rude.
If you want to be a royalist that's lovely, crack on but try listening to and respecting other peoples opinions. Be nice, you might like it.

Well said Kofi Annan

by **hwangeruk** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:11 pm

Opinions are like a..holes, everyones got one.

The trouble is, alot of peoples "opinions" aren't based on any tangible facts at all. For e.g if we suggested we scrap the monarchy, but to make up for the loss of tourism income we would have to pay another 8p in the pound on base income tax just how many of these antiroyals would vote for their abolishment then? Probably most of them, as its spite based out of naked jelaously, its got little to do with the overall picture. And thats why its dangerous to have referendums on important matters of state.

The facts I trotted out in my frustrated little diatribe took me all of 15 minutes to find out with Google and getting the figures from the HM Treasury website.

I was surprised myself how little they get from the government.

Of course not all Liverpudlians are lefties, I didn't mean to imply that they were. I apologise if thats how it came across.
But I do believe most socialist thinking from the unwashed masses comes from plain ignorance. The royal issue is an obvious example of how simplistic thinking works.

Of course there are those who are dead against inheritence full stop (even Bill Gates is against it). The trouble is, with a head of state, what do you replace it with? Also, if the royals can generate income directly and then not take any money from the public purse, thats also very desirable. But there is no reason for outright removal, its not going to have any effect on our lives at all. Apart from no head of state, and a reduction in Tourism income.

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:25 pm

hwangeruk wrote:Opinions are like a..holes, everyones got one.

The trouble is, alot of peoples "opinions" aren't based on any tangible facts at all. For e.g if we suggested we scrap the monarchy, but to make up for the loss of tourism income we would have to pay another 8p in the pound on base income tax just how many of these antiroyals would vote for their abolishment then? Probably most of them, as its spite based out of naked jelaously, its got little to do with the overall picture. And thats why its dangerous to have referendums on important matters of state.

The facts I trotted out in my frustrated little diatribe took me all of 15 minutes to find out with Google and getting the figures from the HM Treasury website.

I was surprised myself how little they get from the government.

Of course not all Liverpudlians are lefties, I didn't mean to imply that they were. I apologise if thats how it came across.
But I do believe most socialist thinking from the unwashed masses comes from plain ignorance. The royal issue is an obvious example of how simplistic thinking works.

Of course there are those who are dead against inheritence full stop (even Bill Gates is against it). The trouble is, with a head of state, what do you replace it with? Also, if the royals can generate income directly and then not take any money from the public purse, thats also very desirable. But there is no reason for outright removal, its not going to have any effect on our lives at all. Apart from no head of state, and a reduction in Tourism income.

I find it very strange that your only 2 posts on here are about the Royal Family why is that?

by **hwangeruk** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:08 pm

Cos I know fek all about football? LOL

Prolly cos I get easily frustrated by people who don't know anything about a subject but claim to understand how it works. A bit like Sven G Erikson :-)

I'll try n stick to footy from now on, promise :/

http://www.ihateronaldo.com/

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:14 pm

hwangeruk wrote:Prolly cos I get easily frustrated by people who don't know anything about a subject but claim to understand how it works.

Well the Royal family dont really bother and Im not really interested or claim to know much about them.
I seen the queen once going along Bold Street in town and give her a wave, I also got a Queens jubilee mug when I was about 7 in a street party thats it Im afraid

by **JC_81** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:41 pm

Ciggy wrote:
hwangeruk wrote:Prolly cos I get easily frustrated by people who don't know anything about a subject but claim to understand how it works.

Well the Royal family dont really bother and Im not really interested or claim to know much about them.
I seen the queen once going along Bold Street in town and give her a wave, I also got a Queens jubilee mug when I was about 7 in a street party thats it Im afraid

I saw the Queen once... when I was waiting in a train station in fecking Dundee :laugh:

Ridiculous as it sounds she was touring Scotland in her Jubilee year and sure enough she showed up to get a private train back down to London. Hungover as I was I thought I must have been hallucinating, but it was on the news later that night :laugh:

by **RAGE UK** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:17 pm

Lets take the topics about the world cup off the this forum (witch has nothing at all to do with football)
And we can all have a nice chat about the GOD DAM QUEEN (THAT IS ALL ABOUT FOOTBALL).

Liverpool FC Forum

Gerrard ignored by the queen again - Barry ferguson, wtf?

Who is online