blonde poker forum

Suprised there was no thread already!

Just watched back the pagent today and was very impressed i personally am very much a fan of the royal family it is something to be very proud of! I thought the pagent was spectacula today with thousands of people celebrating being british... in the rain! Its only fitting!

Proud to be british

happy 60 years Mrs Queen!

The prime minister was so proud to be British, he moved his street party inside.

Queen> Cameron

+

The boat pageant must have been the single dullest thing ever broadcast on television.

Boats, going down a river, for 4 hours.

That was it.

Never have so many TV presenters said so little, over and over again, for so long.

Why are so many people so proud of the Royal Family? And why is it so important to celebrate being British?
Would be interested to hear views from pro-monarchists as I've never really got it. Maybe should go in t'other thread.

But don't worry if you missed it as its being repeated on perma-loop on pretty much every channel all day long.

It was pretty much every worst aspect of BBC news coverage.

It has to be 100% comprehensive coverage - even when the story can be more than easily covered in half an hour.

There can't be any 'dead' air - this is essential for radio because it can lose listeners. But it's a shame no one at the BBC realises that it is possible to just let viewers watch what's going on, it isn't actual necessary to have a constant stream of inane commentary.

It didn't take long to realise that if I just bought a newspaper today it would have all the coverage I was interested in (mainly just photo's of the flotilla)

How Is everyone spending today we?

We are going to a street/garden party

are any shops open todya?

supermarkets are definitely

I'm gonna play the 60£ at g

my mum made me watch the horsey thing, some show that they had on for queeny at windsor castle a couple of days ago. I'd never have watched it if she hadn't put it on when I was round there last night but really glad I saw it, there was some really amazing shit going on, much better than the parade of boats, well worth a watch imo

Really embarrassing opener by Robbie Williams, imo

Working today, working tomorrow....standard Monday, Tuesday for me.

Just can't get into this Jubilee shite.  The queen looked thoroughly cold and bored yesterday from what I saw, and guess what, same today.

Not a fan, soz.

Soon.........

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/KateMiddleton13-060310-0010.jpg

Far too skinny......she looks anorexic.

You heard it here first!

she looks nowhere near anorexic - perfectly healthy imo - just got a small frame

Never got the royals tbh, but there are alot more modern than say 20years ago. Mainly down to a swell of disappointment on how they handled the Di saga, but credit where due.

And have to admit concert as a whole was excellent (ignoring the Lenny Henry links)

Don't like royals but love being English. GSTQ.

After close scrutiny I agree with Claw that she's just 'slim' rather than anywhere near 'skinny'

But I'll just check the picture again to make sure

Bloody love the Queen

Just wondered, was there any reason why she couldn't have the decency to have took two minutes to say a couple of words at the end to say thank you etc to everyone ?

don't think it's a question of decency, more protocol.  but yeah, would have been nice if she'd said cheers for coming out etc.

My nephew and niece were there with official tickets etc. Before the concert a lot of the royals were wandering around and chatting to everyone and they met and chatted to Prince Andrew, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. They thought the concert was immense and they got given a massive picnic basket with loads of nice food and stuff to eat before it started.

I thought it was pretty cool that they popped into our garden party just for a beer!!

(http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r600/leeethefish/f084a66d.jpg)

Everyone all gathered together, wearing team colours, blowing whistles, banging drums, singing rousing songs....

I thought it was great.

I'm all for the Jubilee, but it seems a bit pointless just watching her have lunch  :D

Cool to have an excuse for a national day off. We had a street party and it was amazing... the kids loved it especially.

The only thing that could have made it better would have been if it was as a celebration of the abolition of the monarchy. Pretty ridiculous that in this day and age people still think it is a good idea to have such a symbol of undeserved entrenched privilege and social division, and even think it is good for the country and something to be proud of.

I can think of many people who I'd prefer to have as a symbol of the nation and 'representing' Britain, instead of the stuck up and out of touch queen and her racist husband.

Emma Bunton is still hot (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/wub.gif)

Not really in a time when businesses and the whole country are struggling enough as it is.

Even a small business like mine suffers. 24 employees all of whom have to be paid this extra day off.

I wouldn't mind so much but the government takes all the credit for giving you a day off and still charge you income tax for your "free day off". Doesn't cost them one penny in lost revenue, wipes billions off the value of company's and morons who have no clue of the bigger picture thank them for it.

Such a massive sigh.

Despite it being lovely to have a day off and street party, I agree with all this.

18 months or so ago I remember some public sector workers went on strike for the day over getting shafted on pay and conditions. I don't want to argue about the rights and wrongs of their case, or the rights and wrongs of strike action. But what I do want to say is that at the time the government said it was irresponsible for these guys to strike at a time of national recession, that it would cost the economy, that we couldn't afford strikes, that we all had to work together etc. Then 6 months later we were all granted a day off because two people got married (Kate and William). Suddenly things changed and, in the middle of a recession, it was now perfectly ok for EVERYONE to have an extra bank holiday, and for loads of public money to be spent as well. What made these two so special? As far as I am concerned they are no better than me or you... yet they had a posh wedding paid for, and everyone was told to have a day off to celebrate. Meanwhile some poor nurse who is trying her best to serve society is criticised for protesting about her terrible working conditions and pay, whilst William who has been born with a silver spoon in his mouth and spends his life as a drain on society is allowed... oh fuck it, you know what I am saying!

And with regard to the jubilee the same thing applies. Nice to have a party etc. But all these businesses that are struggling are told they have to give their workforce an extra day off just because some old biddy who has lived her whole life in privilege paid for by everyone else, wants a celebration of the fact that she has 'ruled' us for a long time. It's just another example of the upper class taking the piss out of everyone else.

I love the "life of privaledge" stuff

You couldnt pay me to be  a royal

I used to agree that this was a reasonable counter argument. But I have changed my mind for several reasons:

1. If any of them decide they don't want to live in the public eye, perhaps because their public duties are too stressful and onerous, they are quite able to renounce their position. They would still end up living in massive comfort as a drain on society. They have a choice that you and me don't.

2. These guys get whatever they want. They want the best seat at the World Cup Final... they get it, and they get to meet the players too. They want to go and see such and such an artist perform... they get it, and they get backstage too if they choose. I'd love to get an opportunity to... I don't know... jam with Slash from Guns N Roses. No chance. But if William decided he liked playing guitar and fancied jamming with Slash... well guaranteed it would happen. What makes him better than you or me?

3. Even if somehow I could be convinced that the royals have it oh so very hard due to their strenuous public duties and life in the public eye... I would still think they suck, because they are a SYMBOL of inequality, a SYMBOL of privilege and social divison. Noone really thinks they are anything other than a symbol anyway tbh, I just think they symbolise all that is wrong with this country, not all that is right.

4. Others say "well look at how they were treated growing up, so much coldness and no love from their parents. Did you know that Charles was made to stand silently in the corner for hours on end to practice how to act in public. Did you see the King's Speech?" etc etc.  Well there are thousands of kids around the country that are beaten up or abused by their parents, or at least shown little love and warmth - it's not like the royals are the only ones. And if they really are such shitty parents, prepared to treat their own kids so badly, well why on earth have we got them 'representing' our country?

Tbh, I wouldn't want to be in the royal family either! But that doesn't make them a good thing. I think they should cease to exist. They stand for all that is fucked up in our country.

Fuck the lefty haters  ;D

Lol, well that's my arguments quashed then! ;)

No point writing a lengthy argument mate, I know haters are haters and wasting an hour of my time writing out a reply won't change your mind anyway  :P

It's still fun to debate though, and I like having intelligent people challenging me and giving the other side of the argument. It's good to have your views challenged, forces you to examine your opinions.

I don't really do intelligent debate, but used to have opinions much like yours when I was younger - it wasn't cool to like the royal family and everything they stand for and I definitely would have been in the 'banish the monarcy' camp.  I've definitely changed my opinion with age though - I don't think they're a bad bunch really.  I can't say they particularly make me 'proud to be british' or anything like that but I reckon the good they do for our country far outweighs their cost to the taxpayer.  I don't envy their position either.  My anonymity is pretty important to me and I wouldn't swap it for all the privileges.

It does seem absolutely absurd that the economy is in such a state; so lets spend millions/lose millions to celebrate this, jokes.

Their good particularly outweighs their cost when most of the Royal family don't take any money from the Civil List anymore - a lot of anti-monarchists have arguments against hereditary privilege which aren't actually anything to do with having a Monarchy, they're just because some people are rich and some people are poor.

It's fair enough if you believe in socialism and/or communism - but it would carry more weight if people knew exactly what they were fighting for and fighting against.

I like them! Like the Pie, I could do without the two day bank holidays. I don't ,imd once every sixty years but let it become a habit please. 

Do you have to be left wing to be anti monarchy or a republican?   The presence of the Queen as the head of state in the UK precludes the UK from having an elected head of state that could serve as a proper check and balance on the power of the government and that would be my major objection.  I also don't think that any powers of executive or government should be hereditary but that isn't a particularly left wing perspective.  I just think that the people would be better off electing a head of state that we can decide whther they are the best people for the job.  I don't have anything against the Queen or other royals and they all seem decent enough people but that alone isn't a reason for the monarchy as an institution to be head of state.  

LOL at elected head of state.

I like the fact that the HoS is not a position that can be campaigned for, or taken by the personally ambitious. Pretty sure we don't need another politician in charge, someone who panders to opinion polls and focus groups every 5 minutes.

No but they usually are.

Might be nice to live in North Korea tho  ;)

very much this. give me queenie or charlie over President Blair any day.

I don't think it neccesarily follows that an elected HoS would have to have massively increased political powers but the only check we have on our current government is the Queen (who, correctly, never uses her power of veto although she could and we will probably never know how close she came in 2010 to having to appoint a PM) and the House of Lords which can easily be maniplulated by government appointments.  An elected HoS could curb abuses of power legitimately without having to worry about not having a mandate like the Queen.  I see no problem is us continuing to have a monarch I just don't see why she should have any real powers.

I never really get this argument.  If the Queen wanted to stand then she could and if she had enough support then she could be the HoS.  If you don't want President Blair then don't elect him but surely that is the point of democracy the people get who the people choose.

I didn't want Cameron as Prime Minister either, but he is. 

If there was an election tomorrow and the Queen stood I think she'd run away with it.  Would she then be expected to be more vocal in her political opinions though?  It's also inevitable that if it became an elected position you'd end up with the career politicians having their eye on it at some point down the line.

But it was precisely what I was talking about.

A LOT of people commenting over the Jubilee weekend were promoting socialism and the Left - they're arguments were completely irrelevant to whether the Head of State was the Queen or an elected President.

As with others I'd prefer an apolitical Head of State with a loosely defined influence over policy rather than a political one whose priorities (at best) will be:

1. getting re-elected
2. what's good for their party
3. what's good for the country

(at worse other things like friends and allies go in at 3.)

Having an unelected Head of State might not be democratic - but it works, and it works well.

Democracy is the will of 'the people' - so it isn't necessarily a great thing when most of 'the people' are complete idiots.

You only have to look at the greatest democracy ever (no really it is) in Ancient Greece

They democratically voted to make an entire conquered nation into slaves - and they never went consecutive years where they didn't vote for war - 'the people' haven't got any better between then and now - so just how good is democracy?

*shines 'Mond!' sign into the sky*

Thing is we tried it once and it didn't work. Had to ask them back

I like the royal family.
That's all I have to say!

Just to add some balance... I fkin hate them.

Doesn't matter what u foreigners think  ;whistle;

I don't want some staid aristocrat representing me when foreign dignitaries come to visit, nor acting as Head of State in any other way. If we really need to have someone in this role, then I want Lil'Dave.

Lil'Dave for Queen!!!

I neither like them or hate them, I'm definitely not a fan though. Sadly I am uneducated about them and despite the numerous threads that have been on blonde I've yet to learn much on here about them either. As far as I'm aware, other than their attraction of being Royalty which makes the country money, they seem to do very little.


Woosh ?

I agree that democracy is flawed but I also cannot think of a better system.  I guess my issue is that I don't think that having an unelected head of state works and works well like you do.  I think it leads to the elected government in the country behaving as what Lord Hailsham described as an "elective dictatorship" and I don't think that is good for the country.  There are three parts to British Parliament.  House of Commons, House of Lords and the Monarch.  Two of them are unelected which means that whoever controls the HoC controls the country with basically no real checks or balances.

I don't hate them exactly.

But if I ever met one of them, I'd lay 1000000/1 I bowed.

I hate all the forelock tugging and cow towing.

They are not special and do not deserve to be treated as such.

Fking hate Andrew though.

No need to throw a strop just because I didn't see your staking thread in time.

I'll buy a piece next time.

That's an interesting point of view.

By interesting obviously I mean wrong.

Whereas you say 'no real checks or balances' what you mean is no constitutionally enshrined concrete sets of checks or balances.


As an aside - an elected HoS would have massively increased political powers - because they would have a mandate to have them.

The Queen never uses her power of veto because she doesn't have to use it. Her political role is to advise the Prime Minister, and if something was so completely stupid that it could be veto'd she would advise them not to do it - and 999/1000 they wouldn't do it. The 1 time out of a 1000 they did - it would be so stupid that they wouldn't remain long as Prime Minister.

The House of Lords under the hereditary principle was hugely anachronistic - but it got through thousands of pieces of very dull legislation that the HoC didn't need to worry about as well as scrutinising HoC's legislation and and 100's of times a year sending it back to be re-considered and amended. The appointees who replaced the hereditaries still do this to a slightly lesser extent - but if/when they get replaced by elected Lords then they'll mainly just do what their equivalent party machinery is enforcing in the Commons - because now they'll have to start worrying about re-election and they'll need the party machinery to back them up.

Similarly an elected Head of State will either be the same party as the Commons - so everything will get passed, or the opposing party - so everything will get blocked (a simplification but get my drift)

i.e. the more democracy you get for the second chamber - the less checks and balances and accountability you end up with.

There is trading to get things done - but more or less if the same party controls the different branches of government they won't check anything because they're on the same side, and if it's the opposing party they won't check anything because they're on the opposite side.

The evidence of the Queen's role in providing checks and balances is obviously just inferred but the 1000's of pieces of legislation the House of Lords have forced to be amended over the years is material proof of it's effectiveness (at least it's effectiveness whilst it's still undemocratic)

If this post comes across as rude it is only through ignorance rather than intent but.....
The whole "extra day of costs us billions" thing - is that right? I mean it is surely just rough maths based on many assumptions rather than properly calculated isn't it?
I can see how companies that have had their workforce in and had to pay extra lose out but I was talking to a few mates about it and what will happen is we'll basically do 5 days work in 3 days. In a normal week I have to do 8.30 till 5 and this week I'll do longer hours and have had 2 days off. If I got to chose I'd probably do 4 long days every week for an extra day off but I don't get that choice. I haven't had a "free" day off I've just had my hours of work moved a bit for the week.
Just wondered if this is ever taken into account or whether people just assume that either there is no work that needs catching up so productivity has been lost or that to catch up everybody gets paid more to do so.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/End_the_disgrace_of_slave_labour_at_the_Queens_jubilee/?wgjLcbb

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

Unemployed bussed in to steward river pageant
Coachloads of jobless people brought in to work unpaid on river pageant as part of Work Programme

Call for inquiry into use of unpaid jobseekers as jubilee stewards

Shiv Malik
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June 2012 22.29 BST


Some of those hired as stewards had to spend the night before the pageant sleeping under London Bridge.
A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.

Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told the Guardian they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday.

One young worker said she was on duty between London Bridge and Tower Bridge during the £12m river spectacle of a 1,000-boat flotilla and members of the Royal family sail by . She said that the security firm Close Protection UK, which won a stewarding contract for the jubilee events, gave her a plastic see-through poncho and a high-visibility jacket for protection against the rain.

Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.

The firm said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep and that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.

The woman said that people were picked up at Bristol at 11pm on Saturday and arrived in London at 3am on Sunday. "We all got off the coach and we were stranded on the side of the road for 20 minutes until they came back and told us all to follow them," she said. "We followed them under London Bridge and that's where they told us to camp out for the night … It was raining and freezing."

A 30-year-old steward told the Guardian that the conditions under the bridge were "cold and wet and we were told to get our head down [to sleep]". He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor.

The woman said they were woken at 5.30am and supplied with boots, combat trousers and polo shirts. She said: "They had told the ladies we were getting ready in a minibus around the corner and I went to the minibus and they had failed to open it so it was locked. I waited around to find someone to unlock it, and all of the other girls were coming down trying to get ready and no one was bothering to come down to unlock [it], so some of us, including me, were getting undressed in public in the freezing cold and rain." The men are understood to have changed under the bridge.

The female steward said that after the royal pageant, the group travelled by tube to a campsite in Theydon Bois, Essex, where some had to pitch their tents in the dark.

She said: "London was supposed to be a nice experience, but they left us in the rain. They couldn't give a crap … No one is supposed to be treated like that, [working] for free. I don't want to be treated where I have to sleep under a bridge and wait for food." The male steward said: "It was the worst experience I've ever had. I've had many a job, and many a bad job, but this one was the worst."

Both stewards said they were originally told they would be paid. But when they got to the coach on Saturday night, they said, they were told that the work would be unpaid and that if they did not accept it they would not be considered for well-paid work at the Olympics.

Molly Prince, managing director of Close Protection UK, said in a statement: "We take the welfare of our staff and apprentices very seriously indeed.

"The staff travelling to the jubilee are completing their training and being assessed on the job for NVQ Level 2 in spectator safety after having completed all the knowledge requirements in the classroom and some previous work experience. It is essential that they are assessed in a live work environment in order to complete their chosen qualifications.

"The nature of festival and event work is such that we often travel sleeping on coaches through the night with an early morning pre-event start – it is the nature of the business … It's hard work and not for the faint-hearted.

"We had staff travel from several locations and some arrived earlier than others at the meeting point, which I believe was London Bridge, which was why some had to hang around. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances but not lack of care on the part of CPUK."

The company said it had spent up to £220 on sponsoring security training licences for each participant and that boots and combat trousers cost more than £100.

The charity Tomorrow's People, which set up the placements at Close Protection under the work programme, said it would review the situation, but stressed that unpaid work was valuable and made people more employable. Tomorrow's People is one of eight youth charities that were supported in the Guardian and Observer's Christmas appeal last year.

Abi Levitt, director of development services at the charity, said: "We have been unable to verify the accuracy of the situation with either the people on work experience or the business concerned.

"We will undertake a review of the situation as matter of urgency. Tomorrow's People believes strongly in the value of work experience in helping people to build the skills, confidence and CV they need to get and keep a job and we have an exemplary record going back nearly 30 years for our work with the long-term unemployed."

Sandy

Also, bear in mind that in the past 40 years or so, on every single occasion where the HoC and HoL have clashed and sent a piece of legislation back and forth between themselves (bar one - the anti-hunting bill), it has been the HoL which has had the viewpoint which was more in tune with the opinion of the public at the time (ie, the 'undemocratic' house which more accurately reflected the views of the people).

The system is really not as broken as some people seem to think it is.

The thing is, even if the current queen does an ok job of being Head of State, representing our country, and talking to the PM at their meetings (I'm not saying she does or she doesn't btw)... well why should she be given this important job over others who might do even better than her? She didn't have an interview, has not proved that she is the best person for the job, and is not at all accountable. I bet Lil'Dave would do a much better job than she does.

Queen > 60 years

It's a good summer to be British

#Jubilee #Olympics #Rain

xx

Most tilting thing ever over the past 4 days..

Not the fact I had to attend the local church celebrations and hob nob with the priests :( or go to a street party right after, or the fact my house is getting rewired so we had to stay at my parents BUT the fact that twitter was filled with people complaining about the concert on TV yet feeling the need to whine about it for 8hrs straight and let everyone know via multiple tweets about each act.....I didn't watch it for a reason...

Well it was hardly going to be Wrestlemania was it... *Shakeshead*

If Barlow suplexed Charles it would have been much better.