blonde poker forum

Apparently betting suspended, any truth you reckon?

Hope it passes to William if true.

can it pass to william? Thought charlie had to have a go first.

Can if the parties involved agree it I think. Would make sense as they are very popular, and Charlie not so...

Yeah I don't either get the Charles dislike to be honest.  Very old fashioned and out of touch but seems a decent bloke at the end of the day.

What about Thatcher, she was a right un wasn't she?

Has anyone called the police?

Worse than hitler.

Have you tried turning it off an on again?

Fuck you AmayaStars.

Ignore whatever [Mantis (or Arboy if its a Liverpool thread)] said, he is just trolling.

Christ it's got clicky here these days, not as good as it used to be.



There you go, brought the thread to it's natural conclusion a day in advance. Enjoy your free evening everyone.

As it seems the Mirror have broken the story I assume it was their reporter that went into Laddies Windsor and asked for a Grand on her to go Christmas day.
Hopefully they are doing a story on how bookies dont take bets ;)

I usually take these opportunities to post this....

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJNcnDLWNis

What was the price?

Her head?

This thread has been reinstated after removal of several Posts which were offensive.

Booooom! Job done Nicola McLean. Newspaper story and forum thread.

Offensive to who?  You Unionists are a funny bunch.

Good work

Nicola McLean is going to be queen?  interesting departure from tradition. 

I would imagine a suggestion to hang people, Royal Family or otherwise, may well be offensive to many.

It has nothing to do with Unionists. I am not a Unionist, nor are many here.

I was offended Kmac. Horrible suggestion.

Wind yer neck in. 

There are far more extreme ways to get rid of them. 

Entitlement by birth right is so wrong on many levels and it is no wonder the country is in the shit when we prop this lot up with handout after handout, then add to that all their elitis friends who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it bit them in the arse, all the while pensioners are struggling to eat and heat their homes through no fault of their own other than corporate greed.  The disabled and unemployed are scapegoated and struck by austerity measures whilst that twat William makes a profession out of being unemployed. 

so that's "sorry" then?

To be fair, he does have a full time job as an air ambulance pilot at Cambridge airport. From what I can tell he gets some decent holiday entitlement.

I agree with a huge part of your overall sentiment but I think the patriotism the Royal Family provide as a whole as well as the tourism benefits far outweigh any expenditure. If we didn't have the Queen what national anthem would we sing? Who would our Armed Forces fight for? No way I want to lick the back of David Camerons head whenever I send a letter. There are many problems with our economic/political system and I understand the Royal Family are representative to some degree of that, but we have to live a little as a country. God Save The Queen.

why not suggest no royal family rather than hanging them? Not like they have a choice either

Hasn't he retired from the RAF I recall he had.   "To concentrate on public life"  

Correct.

The salary is circa £40,000, which he donates to the Air Ambulance Charity.

The tourism factor is vastly overrated imo.  

Why do your armed forces have to fight for anyone?  Why not have a defence force that protects its people and borders rather than having them fight for war mongerers.  

As for stamps, if you still use them more fool you but I'd suggest we have an elected 2nd chamber and then perhaps use the images of people who have actually contributed to society on Stamps.  

What do you use instead?

I don't post anything.  Welcome to the modern world. 

What if you need to send a paper document or greetings card to a place which is not in your house?

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAcdV019oMQ

He hand delivers to save all the disabled people

Can't help thinking that not posting anything would have been an improvement. 

Doesn't he start next spring?   

Much too good.

Can't believe you copped for the stamp thing mate. This trolling malarky is quite fun.

I don't think the Queen can be considered a warmonger, the Royal Family has no real power anymore. I meant the whole queen and country thing, rather than people specifically fighting for her. What I was getting at is there are a lot of institutions in Britain, Royal this and Royal that, that would be poorer if the neck of our beloved Queen was suddenly snapped.

As for the tourism factor, it is inevitable you think it is overrated, supporters of the Queen probably think it is underrated and I'm presuming many people choose to take in Buckingham Palace as a small part of their time in London and there is no possible way to quantify it.

Quite possibly, I just know it was made known earlier this year. The point is the same, of course.

It's not really though is it?  He pays no tax/NI at the moment gets loads of jolly's at the expense of ordinary working men and woman and yet makes some shit gesture like 40k a year to charity.  Why not pass up the 1.5 mill refurb give that to charity and use the 40k to do up his free house. 

40k would barely do the kitchen up in his house to be fair, it's pretty big.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/lebron-royal-protocol-arm-kate_n_6301382.html

This is the sort of nonsense that reeally annoys me about the royals.

We aren't allowed to touch them?

Why not?

FWIW, when asked, they said it was fine.

Well get a house you can afford to buy/rennovate. 

I think this is the sort of thing that isn't really a thing anymore, but newspapers use it to manufacture a story on slow days. Diana was very tactile, and it seems like Wills & Kate are much the same.

I must admit though, I have nothing against the Royals, think they are good for the economy and personally don't envy them being born into the limelight....however even though I'm probably more pro royal than against, I don't think I would bow or call them your magesty if I met them. Just does not sit right with me.

Robbie Coltrane refused to bow to the Queen at some fancy do once.

Being as they are from London they would probably need that 1.5 million then, its pretty hard for a young couple with a kid to get on the property ladder. Or they could get a council house I suppose.

Or they could both get paying jobs, save some dough and get a mortgage.  Instead of sponging off the rest of us.

William seems like a decent bloke, but I'm a million to one to bow if I ever meet him.

There's only one member of royalty I'd consider bowing to:

Sir Les Ferdinand.

kmac just google the civil list, royal family costs and benefits etc etc

you really do have a one eyed approach that diminishes any point you make on this matter

"The monarchy costs 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer. In return, besides the Crown Estate profits, there is the unquantifiable, but enormous, tourist revenue it generates."

was one quote, for example, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/7850335/The-Royal-family-is-a-bargain-for-Britain.html

net net the royal family costs the taxpayer nothing, and generates cash that is spent in other areas

Must be true then because the Civil Service is most impartial.

Well we've already established that Wills has a job and Kate is currently pregnant, so she might struggle to get a job right now, especially as she already has another kid right now. I suppose they could move in to Clarence House with Prince Charles for a year or so while they save up a deposit, but that's quite a lot to ask of Charles and Camilla when their will be two toddlers running around. Hardly seems fair imo.

but you don't address the point, just come back with a half arsed cynical counter

so wrapped up in your ideology that you are unprepared to accept the facts

beat me to it Tighty....also like this bit from it:

The German presidency costs about the same as the Queen, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?

Well if she returns to work then most mortgage companies will attempt to go for a reference and confirm her post maternity salary and will lend on that basis. 

She does have a job right?

He was elected to his position right, unlike the German Queen of England.

But she would get voted in, if there were an election for that sort of thing, I think that's one thing we can all agree on.

Can you imagine my shock when I was told by the TV Licensing people that I had to write them a letter to have the name on the license changed because there wasn't an email address for it?

Nearly fell off my chair

The bloody BBC, eh? Lets hang them too

Too good Doobs.

I don't really think the cost or benefit the Royal Family bring is the point.

(I don't buy the fqact they attract tourists. The tourists would still come and gawp at Buckingham Palace. Possibly more so when they would the chaance to tramp through all the rooms they are denied entry to currently. "And this the room where Micheal Fagan saat on the queens bed and offered her a fag...")

It's the fact in the 21st Century that people in power/authority are there by birthright, not elected.

POTY

QFT.

More people visit the palace in Versailles than Buckingham Palace by a long way, and they've not had any actual royals for ages. We might even get more visitors if we kick the monarchy out so it can be open 24x7.

Besides I'm not sure we should be using our system of government as a tourist attraction.

Disliking the system is fine, I can understand that.

Hating on anyone simply because of their birthright is not something I could ever grasp.

so you're saying someone born in Britain with British Nationality isn't really British because one of their Great Great Grandparents were foreign?

Have you considered a job with UKIP? :)

If so, I hope he is not relying on postal votes.

I'm not. 

Postal votes should be banned. 

To be honest you're a billion to one to meet him if you won't bow (unless you lie I suppose).  They were at my Mrs's function and it's very pre-arranged.  Everyone has to have their passports vetoed by secret service bods etc.  I'd bow if I met him.  It's just respecting protocol, like when I carefully study a Japanese CEO's business card when I meet him.  Just keeps everyone happy.

Come on Camel.  They don't have any power/authority really.  They are just a performing circus attraction which brings in the tourists.  I'd rather be a normal citizen than Prince Dung.

Why?

Leaves door open to voter fraud, people who are perhaps not entitled to vote can get a vote - I know of numerous examples this happened in Referendum on both sides.   And if you can't be arsed going to vote then you shouldn't be allowed to vote imo.  I'd maybe allow it in the most extreme set of circumstances. 

so that the hard working posh boys who commute to the city every day cant vote for the tories

I know nothing about it but assume it's there for people who struggle to or who do not want to go to a polling booth - the elderly, those with special needs etc.

My nan always votes but I doubt next year she will want to get a bus, and stand in line for an hour (she is 86) when she can just post it. If you take away postal voting then are you not essentially restricting who can vote?

Extreme circumstances is always a rocky road as to where you draw the line. Why not just have a system that is not open to fraud. I had never heard the current one was really.

Restrict it to the disabled, the elderly and those serving/working overseas.   Problem solved.

"I had never heard the current one was really."

In the Bordesley Green ward, he ruled that up to 2,000 postal votes were fraudulent, and in Aston 1,000. In many cases whole families had had their votes intercepted and changed by Labour.
Chaman Salha, a solicitor for the Aston Labour councillors, said the result was a "dark day for democracy".


http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/politics.localgovernment

Interesting, if that is still happening today then the focus should be on producing a system so that it can't. I assume it's not rife enough to warrant it or it's going undetected.

Restricting anyone that wants to vote from voting doesn't seem right when the general population is already so apathetic.

I'd be more open to techology being used, but that also has downsides. 

Postal is much harder to police.  Just get down to the voting booth for heaven's sake unless you can't make it for valid reason.

Happened again in the Tower Hamlets election for mayor.

"The extremist-linked mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, benefited from “considerable” postal ballot fraud and may also have been helped by “organised fraud in the counting of the votes”, according to his Labour Party rival. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10993065/Industrial-scale-fraud-in-mayors-victory.html

Quick question. Does anyone posting on this thread think that their arguments will have any effect on Kmac84 other than amusing him?

Probably not

Could very easily say the same about any thread in this section. Never seen anybody change their mind including me and plenty of others.

Does not stop it being interesting

Absolutely not.  Free loaders aren't my cuppa tea. 

I love my history and when I read books about Britain through the ages it gives me a real buzz. Personally I'm a bit of an aficionado on the Tudor period but have also studied the Wars of the Roses and delved into the murky world of Edward III in the 13th century. I get a bit of a headache going much further back but I do believe the first king of England was Alfred the Great crowned in about 880, which is some one thousand one hundred years ago. Now the twists and turns, mysteries, adventures and campaigns that have happened over the last millennium are fascinating. Much of it has centred around the monarchy and it's an institution which is entrenched in the very fabric of our DNA as people of England. Throughout the ages many have threatened or challenged the existence of the monarch, bloody wars have been fought, kings have been forcibly abdicated, executed and put to the sword in combat. And yet they have endured.

The latest challenge to this bastion of British culture and heritage in the year 2014 is Kmac84 calling them "free loaders" and Camel threatening not to bow. Think it might be gg this time folks, Liz might as well pack her bags!! 

Incidentally when I was a kid my mum used to threaten to "string me up" if I left the light on in the bathroom when I came down the stairs. At the time I felt guilty but looking back I find it offensive.

They have massive power.

For example.

The queen let it be known she would be horrified if Yes won the Scoottish independence vote and all the old biddies who wouldn't have bothered voting got their collective knickers in atwist and rushed to ruin the future of all the under 30s north of the border.

Over 65s have always been the most prolific voting group, I doubt the Queen coerced enough extra votes to make a notable difference from that demographic (A fact which worries me now I think of that in the context of UKIP).

Lol - that is just massive speculation on your behalf.

Charles unquestionably affected the Blair government policy on enviromental issues.

The Queen definitely had a say on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland.

The list is long.

FYP

Aye very good David, back in your cage. 

Its admitted by many in Better Together that getting Betty Battenberg out to have her tuppenceworth was massive for them. 

She also did that awesome parachute at the Olympics.

Ahhhh the Olympics, that was money well spent too wasn't it?

And the Thatcher funeral.

And so on and so forth

I think it overly complacent to dismiss the power that they have.  Just on a theoretical level the Queen has a power of veto over all legislation.  Monarchists point to the fact that she never uses it but realistically that might just be about the personalities of the monarchs of the last 100 years (and we have had many) and someone with stronger views (like Charles) could easily be more forthright.  Irrespective of that they are consulted on a weekly basis by the PM.  Does anyone really think that the PM just sits there and tells him what he is going to do and she just nods along like a lapdog?  What right does she have to that weekly meeting that any other citizen doesn't have?  Presumably the Director of the British Museum doesn't get a weekly audience with the PM on the basis he brings in 6m visitors a year.....

The fact that despite having zero official powers the Queen can still massively influence the hearts and minds of British people clearly demonstrates there's still an intrinsic need for a monarch. 

The first Elizabeth didn't have any power on the battlefield but her historic speech rousing the troops certainly went a long way in defeating the Spanish Armada. Every soldier would have laid down their life for her. Funny isn't it.

Aren't they a bunch of gullible fools.  #NeitherKingNorKaiser

HM's off the cuff remark may have had an impact but it is purely subjective to claim that it ruined anyone's future.

Quite clearly wasn't "off the cuff".

She said nothing until it looked a real possibility Yes might win.

Whether or not a no vote ruined Scotland's future is of course subjective.

But whether Elizabeth played a massive part in No winning or not is a fact.

Still feels pretty subjective to me.

And you do make a good point Red, but I'd much rather the PM meet with the Queen once a week then the editor from one of the tabloids. We've already had one PM become godfather for Rupert Murdoch's kid, I doubt we want another. I feel like the public would react badly to a Monarch blocking any legislation, could prove a bit spicy at some point down the road though.

Couldn't find much about age specific demograpic stuff regarding voter turnout, but I did find this article

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/10/economist-explains-24

"One explanation favoured by older people is that the young are simply lazy. But this does not make much sense. Today’s young people volunteer more than old people; they are much better educated; and they are less likely to drink excessively or use drugs than previous generations of youth. That does not seem like a recipe for political apathy."

And you lot worry about today's generation.

This is all convention and just wpuld never happen. It's like Ukips argument that theoretically the whole of Europe can move here tomorrow

Regardless of whether its convention or not she shouldn't have any power whatsoever. 

There are millions of people on these islands who don't want an unelected Monarch/Head of State.  We go on about how free we are on these islands yet we have by birthright people in postions of power it is no different to dictatorial regimes elsewhere lets face it if one of them gets a bit power mad chaos could ensue. 

My gripe against the Royals is based on class, politics and religion. 

The weekly meeting isn't convention.  It happens every single week.  We are not privy to what goes on in that meeting or how a PM reacts to what is said.  Now obviously this might all be okay and she might just be a nice old lady that accepts everything the democratically elected say but she might not too and there is no guarantee that her successor will take the same view.  What happens, for example, if the monarch becomes mentally ill?  It is so easy to sit back and say it is alright because for x years we haven't had a problem but that is overly complacent and the kind of thinking that has caused numerous issues in the past.  Fwiw I have no massive issue with them as a ceremonial institution but I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

Winner.

My gripe is purely birthright.

I would rather a President Theresa May or Nigel Farage than an unelected King Charles.

But if there was a referendum and the public voted to keep them, I'd accept it.

It is the one issue I'd really be motivated by though. I would knock on every door and explain why a monarchy is wrong 23 hours a day for the month before a vote.

You've been watching too much blackadder. To suggest that any monarch has influence in that weekly meeting is pretty pie in the Sky

Meh.

My off the cuff comment was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

I wish people would quit trying to confuse me.

I'm old and borderline senile. I can't work out what is a joke, sarcasm, serious or an off the cuff comment any more.

I've gone at the game. The Wes Newton of internet forum posting.

It's not really binary though, we are a parliamentary democracy..and we have a Monarchy.

Privilege, birthright and the hereditary nature of society is about as fundamental a function of being part of the human race as it gets.

Some of us inherit our parents bits and bobs, some their houses, some their businesses, some their titles and stately homes etc

It's all the same so, arguably, a belief in heredity of any kind is binary - one either believes in heredity or one doesn't. Your kids might be a bit disappointed one day if you show up with 'unlucky sausages, but principle comes first, it's all going to Amnesty'

I detest Richard Branson obviously, but I can't but admire his decision to leave none of his wealth/property to his children.

Think Sting and Paul McCartney have made the same decision.

lol, obviously. Interesting stance and maybe not as uncommon as I would instinctively think it was.

Clearly the children of the mega rich get lots of opportunities normal kids don't get. But for Branson and Macca that is enough. Once they reach 18, the help stops, they need to carve their own niche.

If there's a more odious subset of people than spoilt adult offspring of rch parents I don't want to meet them.

Its interesting.  Fundamentally the hereditary principle is the root of a lot of the unequality in society.  I can totally understand the desire for people to leave things for their children etc but, objectively, I think it is a bad thing.

I would enjoy this thread a lot more if I knew what binary meant.

It has nothing to do with Nandos.

Think I had a chicken binary once. Came with rice. Wasn't in nandos tho.

You either know what binary means or you don't.

I've been in the pub all night - glad to see you kids can have fun without me.

You're supposed to be in charge round here.

There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't

To funny, and the next couple after this. Anyway, The first rule about ........

I agree in principle too and don't feel a strong urge to leave anything in particular or build any kind of inheritance. With that said, when I go they will get it because I won't arrange any alternative. The whole point is a bit off topic in some ways but I think serves to show how difficult it is to hold black and white, or consistently principled views on just about anything

Didn't know Branson was doing that, but massive respect if so. Given that he was a self starter, makes sense he would want his kids to do the same.

It's funny because we shouldn't judge anyone just because of the circumstances they were born into (including the Queen) but I totally agree, very rarely I respect the children of the very rich. I heard an amazing quote from a rich dude which was something along the lines of the price of working hard is having awful children, I must try and find it out.

Ozzie Osbournes kids.

My extended family has had a few inheritence based feuds, and it was one of the first times (as a teen) that I saw people close to me acting selfish and greedy and mean. Not a fan of these folks who think they 'deserve' anything a parent built, just because.

That said I did inherit this really good dog shaped biscuit tin from my Nan, and no fucker is taking that from me.

Branson: "Coming to Nectar Island for Xmas son?"

Son: "Sorry, can't afford it Dad"

Branson: "Oh ok, let that be a lesson learnt!"

Rolf!

Money doesn't spoil kids, bad parenting does.

If Sting, Macca & Co are cutting their children off when they reach school leaving age to make them in to better people I've got news for them.

It's too late.

Absolutely right Tom.

If Macca was my father I'd be like "Oh bore off Dad!"

I think it was Warren Buffet who said that he wanted to give his kids enough money so that they could do anything they wanted, but not so much that they could get away with doing nothing.

He gave one of his sons a farm, but charged him rent for the farm.

The farm fared badly, & the son could not pay the rent.

So Warren sued him, & re-possessed the farm.

He genuinely thought that was him being a good Dad.

Interesting how Sting is being applauded when he has enough money to ensure the financial security of his family for generations to come but has chosen instead to burn through the lot, without a mention of charity or anyone but himself. Its absolutely not the case that the only option is to leave the kids a big cheque and hope that they don't go nuts with it. Something like a trust that can only be used to pay for university for the next however many 18 year olds in his family, or even better to bright kids in Tyneside who can't afford to go to uni.

If everyone chose to keep hold of every penny they ever made and never helped anyone else the world would a sad, sad place imo.

My dad worked as a chauffer to the wife of the owner of one of the biggest newspaper corporations in London for many years, mainly ferrying about their children with various nannys and housekeepers. Those kids barely ever saw their parents, nobody really cared about instilling them with values and altruism because their parents were 'career people' and the children were to be seen and not heard. What chance did they have to become well rounded individuals when they exist in a bubble of abundance and apathy?

The problem isn't that money is being passed on, the problem is that the recipients of that money tend to be not very nice people due to bad parenting, so the money just goes to people with very little interest in helping others because they never experienced any of that warmth themselves.

Boom. POTY.

Russell Brand for king!!










 ;scarymoment;

If he was elected then why not, but he's not really into constitutional politics so thankfully that would never happen. 

But I suppose if that buffoon Borris can get elected as Mayor of London pretty much anything is possible.

Woodsey started this bleeding thread........he can lead us.

Sorry I'm too hungover today, after a xmas party in Dublin...

So......anyone think she might abdicate then?

One day, probably.

I'm more interested in when we can get the ice cream and jelly out. 

If you still think BoJo is a buffoon you've obviously based your opinion on his HIGNFY appearances. He's very very bright and extremely sharp. He'll be PM someday, and likely a good one.

Johnson is a brilliant politician. created a "buffoon" persona that is popular with his core voters, and is at odds with his political mind, and i don't think any labour politician would relish being against him in a general election contest

hasn't been a bad mayor either, certainly releative to the expectations of his detractors

Just gets better. 

I can't wait for him to be tory leader it will hasten our departure from this sham union.

To celebrate the coronation of King Charles? I agree it will be a joyous day and well spent taxpayers money.

Whoever is leader of whichever political party, you surely have to wait for a new generation of  impressionable 15yr olds before you get the chance to ask that question again?

No.  If the SNP go into the 2015/2016 elections and pick up the majority of seats they they start that campaign again, by that time I'd say by 2020 we have a number of the old biddies frozen to death under Tory austerity measures and corporate greed of the energy suppliers we won't be tricked again and get the desired outcome.

Just too much to pick up on in one sentence there.
Simplest to point out that in a country that can't even build a tramline in their capital city it seems wasteful to devote more time and money on repeating an exercise in futility.

Given they voted no, they didn't get tricked last time. 

Oil price would have been $150 under the SNP tho.

Didn't Richard Branson need loads of money from his aunt early on when he'd messed up?

As for the monarchy, meh, I'm ideologically against them, but they're largely harmless (except when Charles interferes with his homeopathy bullshit, stick to being a tourist attraction).

The unelected House of Lords though is a ridiculous idea in a "democracy".

All this. House of Lords is so much worse than royalty, anyone who is strongly anti monarchy really should be more focussed on getting rid of the House of Lords first.

This is harrowing reading

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108?utm_content=buffere808a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#

How anyone can support such a ghastly family is beyond me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30659629

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/queen-still-very-sexual-2014092491000

She was no Mother Teresa.

Yes, I found this link when reading about the Andrew case.

Sordid, manipulative, corrupt and thoroughly ghastly.

Bin the whole lot of them.

Tried and found guilty by blondepoker  rotflmfao

If being sordid and ghastly, yes he looks pretty guilty to me. You disagree?

Yes I do until he's found guilty of anything.

Tricky one this. The article from Vanity Fair is full of 'sound and fury' and we all know what that signifies. But the association with Epstein makes it hard to see him as an innocent.

The whole 'Privileged male takes advantage of young female' thang is as much of a shock as 'Russian athlete uses drugs' as a headline. The Duke should just go and spend his days marching up and down hills now, that would keep him out of mischief.

But wouldn't that entail having 10000 men?

:D very good

Found guilty of what? He's not going to court to be tried. He's just a very objectionable man with very objectionable friends, doing very objectionable things.

If Prince Andrew was a politician or a civil servant he would have resigned by now.

That's just your opinion and the opinion of many who do not like the royal family, hot air nothing more...

If I had a very objectionable friend who provided me with hot girls to do very objectionable things to I guess I would be ok with the situation.

You can't abdicate and eat it too.