Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

Should the UK get rid of the Monarchy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 42.3%
  • No

    Votes: 26 33.3%
  • Radioactive monkeys should rule all countries

    Votes: 19 24.4%

  • Total voters
    78
I am not sure i completely agree with assertion that Andrew "got away with it". It seems to suggest he got away scot free. Sure - he did not have to go to court and testify. But even if he did, isnt it the case that 90% of those types of civil claims are settled out of court anyway? And would he not have possibly even paid less had he gone through the rigmarole of the court process. Im not sure it was ever likely he would have been prosecuted and sentenced. It was more a case that Charles could not allow his brother to testify in court because he would embarrass the Royal family when it was the queens jubillee. So he agreed to pay an over inflated sum to Virginia Giruffe in order to get her to drop it. So did he get away with it? Im not sure he did. He completely disgraced himself. Lost a lot of privileges he used to enjoy in the UK and paid out a lot of money. Whereas if he had gone to court the exact same things would have happened, only he would not have had to testify and he would probably have paid out quite a bit less than he did. The main thing i wonder is if he was prevented from testifying due to possible criminal proceedings in future. I am not sure we have heard the last of it at any rate.

I think the law is an ass when rape is "settled" in a civil case.
 
In what way has having a monarchy enhanced Britain's power during QEII's reign?
For example she was in Kenya on her accession, which she subsequently lost, along with many others.
What territory did she gain?
She even assented to a laws allowing parts of the UK to leave if they wished.

Edit: Your example above Du Pont was convicted.
 
In what way has having a monarchy enhanced Britain's power during QEII's reign?
For example she was in Kenya on her accession, which she subsequently lost, along with many others.
What territory did she gain?
She even assented to a laws allowing parts of the UK to leave if they wished.
And Charles has mentioned that should rest of Commonwealth nations want to leave Commonwealth he will NOT stop them saying he finds it "ridiculous " that nations across the oceans still hail him as a king.
 
Yes because royalty isn't only thing that people like Andrew can use to protect himself from- like Miller he could use key words in social media or have connections with right group that could prevent him from jail time.
After all Miller doesn't have wealth of royalty or status of royalty and yet he isn't in jail is he?
We're only on this tangent because you refuse to read or listen to any other criticism of the Royal Family, but the fact of the matter is that the Royal Family have shielded Prince Andrew. Ergo, removing them is a net positive insofar as "credibly-convicted paedophiles seeing legal justice" goes. If you agree paedophilia is bad, then you have to agree that removing said protection is good. Regardless of any other ways he may have of protecting himself.
 
So did Erza Miller. And US have no royalty.
I don't see how you can think up "but other people get away with crime too!" as a supposedly good reply to "Andrew got away with crime precisely due to his royal status". If you wanted to at least be honest, you could seek ways that fewer people get away with such crimes, not being ok with Andrew being saved by his mother's corrupt police.
 
And Charles has mentioned that should rest of Commonwealth nations want to leave Commonwealth he will NOT stop them saying he finds it "ridiculous " that nations across the oceans still hail him as a king.
Is that not the opposite of monarchy bringing power, can't even keep a club going.
So does Ireland. Let me reword: what does Britain have that both Ireland and US or any other English speaking nation dosen't?
And pubs... ha ha very impressive.
What other English speaking nations are you taking about?
Many (most?) just gained a rich foreigner as new head of state last week without any say.
 
And I am saying ending monarchy will not change a thing. People already know they will be caught if they commit crime.. except those with connections like Andrew and Miller.
It will change having an unelected person as head of state who has done nothing to earn it or show they are suited to it.
 
Theres a lot of words being thrown here. Im not sure they are all terribly accurrate. Is "rape" an approrpriate term here? She had consensual sex with Andrew by her own account. For money most probably. Was she trafficked into this situation? Not sure. But probably. So if we assume she was trafficked, does that make any sex they had rape? Im not sure it does. Or is it rape because she was 17 and therefore a minor in the state she was in? Not sure that really stands up to much scrutiny either. And on that basis, not sure "paedophile" does either.

Andrew most certainly did wrong. And then lied about it afterwards. And used his wealth and influence to make the whole thing go away. But is he guilty of rape and a paedophile? Seems like these are 2 emotive words deployed as a means of attacking him. And im not sure thats a good thing as it detracts from how terrible they both really are.
 
Many (most?) just gained a rich foreigner as new head of state last week without any say.
I had to check, but it is far from most. He is head of 15 countries, and wikipedia has a list of 75 countries:

1280px-Countries_with_English_as_Official_Language.svg.png

QpHuUSO.png


Theres a lot of words being thrown here. Im not sure they are all terribly accurrate. Is "rape" an approrpriate term here? She had consensual sex with Andrew by her own account. For money most probably. Was she trafficked into this situation? Not sure. But probably. So if we assume she was trafficked, does that make any sex they had rape? Im not sure it does. Or is it rape because she was 17 and therefore a minor in the state she was in? Not sure that really stands up to much scrutiny either. And on that basis, not sure "paedophile" does either.

Andrew most certainly did wrong. And then lied about it afterwards. And used his wealth and influence to make the whole thing go away. But is he guilty of rape and a paedophile? Seems like these are 2 emotive words deployed as a means of attacking him. And im not sure thats a good thing as it detracts from how terrible they both really are.
Underage, and trafficked. Clearly rape. I agree on paedophile though, that is "a preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children".
 
I had to check, but it is far from most. He is head of 15 countries, and wikipedia has a list of 75 countries:

1280px-Countries_with_English_as_Official_Language.svg.png

QpHuUSO.png

Most Nigerians speak English as a first language?!
 
I might be wrong, but I always thought "rape" implied some form of violence or force. The most you could say here is that Giruffe was coerced. It's still abuse and still serious but not on the same playing field.
 
Stones and Glass Houses mate.. What has NZ got? Roadkill Cafe?

Very good coffee, fresh food, good dairy. Better pies.

You don't really find many English style restaurants outside UK. And they took over 1/4 of the world;).
 
And terrible food. Worse than Americans.
I disagree. While our "native" quisine leaves a lot to be desired, we have been very accepting of other quisines such that today you can get great food from all over the world, in both supermarkets and restaurants. Compared to say France, that has great french food but little else in much of the country.
 
I disagree. While our "native" quisine leaves a lot to be desired, we have been very accepting of other quisines such that today you can get great food from all over the world, in both supermarkets and restaurants. Compared to say France, that has great french food but little else in much of the country.

I'm talking about native cuisine.
 
I might be wrong, but I always thought "rape" implied some form of violence or force. The most you could say here is that Giruffe was coerced. It's still abuse and still serious but not on the same playing field.
Legally it just means sex without consent. if you can say coerced thats rape.
 
Back
Top Bottom