Football Media

[belleebee]

The thing i don't get is , people like Bob were rebellious, tried to force change after pop career was over , charity work .

Why tf would you accept some reward from a bunch of hangers on like the Royal Family ? an institution that is way past it's sell by date ? Just say no .

Remind me how much the Swiss head of state gets paid

what does that have to do with the price of fish and chips ??

The Swiss have no head of state , each year someone from the seven membered Federal Council is chosen as 'President' for the year . This year it is turn of Sommaruga

He's disputing your assertion that the royal family are an institution that is way past it's sell by date. One of the usual criticisms is the amount of money they cost, hence the question. The other big criticism is that they are unelected.
As far as I'm concerned, the present queen has been an exemplary head of state for the last seventy years, and in my view has been value for money.
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a royalist, but I don't believe an elected head of state would be anywhere near as effective, or any cheaper.
Credit where it's due.

oh really ??
"Remind me how much the Swiss head of state gets paid "
Doesn't read like it is a Royal Family being out of date dispute .[/quote] I'll remind you then:
"The President of Switzerland earns $482,958 per annum – more than any other head of government in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD is an intergovernmental economic organisation of the 36 highest income economies that are also dedicated to setting transparency standards for governments of global democracies." Essentially the Swiss president does nothing for his huge salary while in contrast the British royal family earns many times the amount needed to maintain its role and estates just in tourism alone quite aside from its constitutional duties.[/quote]

Again, what has that got to do with anything. I have told you it is a one year term and weirdly as it sounds , everybody in government in Switzerland gets paid an income.

The president may become president again , some years later but so what ? it is an actual job not something nebulous like the Royal family , who haven't been voted in . The current President is a member of the seven and does not get paid twice whilst President , next year she becomes another member of the council - at Council rates (ooh remember those before Thatcher ?).

There has to be a president like in all countries. Hangers on are not needed.[/quote]

Might I suggest you write to our esteemed owner to apprise him of your view? . Also, Switzerland is possibly not the best example to use as a model of democratic principles as it's only 51 years since women were given the vote there! Beyond flippancy, I think one's got to be pragmatic sometimes. Monarchy is clearly an anachronism and extremely difficult to justify on any sound constitutional grounds. Even so, despite being a lifelong (democratic) socialist, I'm comfortable with it as it seems to work for the UK and supported (I think) by a large majority of the British public. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[zuricity]

^^^,

Britain wasn't exactly light years ahead giving women the vote either .

As it stands , every vote in Switzerland counts.

Fixing polling boundaries as in the UK and having so many peoples votes deemed worthless because they live in the wrong voting zone is not democratic . ( Neither so in the US ).

The Swiss male or female has a vote that matters.

And all of this is totally irrelevant to Royalty.

[zuricity]

^^^,

Which owner ??


Britain wasn't exactly light years ahead giving women the vote either .

As it stands , every vote in Switzerland counts.

Fixing polling boundaries as in the UK and having so many peoples votes deemed worthless because they live in the wrong voting zone is not democratic . ( Neither so in the US ).

The Swiss male or female has a vote that matters.

And all of this is totally irrelevant to Royalty.

[zuricity]

^^^,

Britain wasn't exactly light years ahead giving women the vote either .

As it stands , every vote in Switzerland counts.

Fixing polling boundaries as in the UK and having so many peoples votes deemed worthless because they live in the wrong voting zone is not democratic . ( Neither so in the US ).

The Swiss male or female has a vote that matters.

And all of this is totally irrelevant to Royalty.

oh and don't forget there were members of parliament from places in the south of england with no constituents before manchester was represented in Parliament ( Peterloo) . How far back is enough ? 51 . 100 years ?

[belleebee]

As I indicated, my initial remarks weren’t intended to be taken too seriously. I’m sure Switzerland has much to commend it and am also well aware of Britain’s democratic failings, both in the past and currently. You do, though, seem to have a thing about royalty: was one of your ancestors executed for hunting in the Royal Forests by any chance?

[zuricity]

^^^

my point is. I don't understand or see the relevance of the remark about a Swiss President , he or she , gets paid . That person was voted in . No lobbed Scimitar, from a watery tart.

Look at what those Royal scammers were upto today , whilst many poor people hit the food banks in the UK.

[belleebee]

Your first two/three sentences are factual statements of your position and, as such, can’t really be argued with. Your third/fourth sentence, I didn’t really follow (Shakespeare?) so can’t comment on. Your final sentence, I guess, is the contentious part. I don’t really wish to debate this further, simply because of the thread title (and forum), but personally I believe there are far greater evils resulting from the decisions of elected politicians than any of the actions of the modern royals. We live in a very imperfect world and our time and efforts are best directed at the truly enormous challenges that face us rather than the relatively minor creases that some might think spoil what is otherwise a pretty picture. (Incidentally, notwithstanding the above, the fact that Murdoch and his vicious corporation are vehemently anti-royal, in my view provides a prima facie case for taking the opposite stance).

[johnny crossan]

Your first two/three sentences are factual statements of your position and, as such, can’t really be argued with. Your third/fourth sentence, I didn’t really follow (Shakespeare?) so can’t comment on. Your final sentence, I guess, is the contentious part. I don’t really wish to debate this further, simply because of the thread title (and forum), but personally I believe there are far greater evils resulting from the decisions of elected politicians than any of the actions of the modern royals. We live in a very imperfect world and our time and efforts are best directed at the truly enormous challenges that face us rather than the relatively minor creases that some might think spoil what is otherwise a pretty picture. (Incidentally, notwithstanding the above, the fact that Murdoch and his vicious corporation are vehemently anti-royal, in my view provides a prima facie case for taking the opposite stance).

Monty Python (there's a surprise) - FWIW I think there are sound constitutional grounds for our monarchy. Primarily it is the power it denies to the executive but also its embodiement of the principle of inheritance through succession which sustains the family group in our society.

[City64]

The Queen bless her has been truly fantastic for the UK over many decades but even she now looks totally pissed of with the state of a once fantastic country and empire. William and Kate are the future the rest can fuck off for me !

[johnny crossan]

^^^
my point is. I don't understand or see the relevance of the remark about a Swiss President , he or she , gets paid . That person was voted in . No lobbed Scimitar, from a watery tart.
Look at what those Royal scammers were up to today, whilst many poor people hit the food banks in the UK.

pretty rich from someone praising a country whose banks are still laundering Nazi loot from the holocaust. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-698398

[BlueinBosnia]

Might I suggest you write to our esteemed owner to apprise him of your view? . Also, Switzerland is possibly not the best example to use as a model of democratic principles as it's only 51 years since women were given the vote there! Beyond flippancy, I think one's got to be pragmatic sometimes. Monarchy is clearly an anachronism and extremely difficult to justify on any sound constitutional grounds. Even so, despite being a lifelong (democratic) socialist, I'm comfortable with it as it seems to work for the UK and supported (I think) by a large majority of the British public. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Technically true, but that was only at the federal level. Universal suffrage across all governmental levels was only achieved in 1991.

In terms of popular support for the monarchy, the last poll I saw (probably 6 or 7 years ago) put it in the low 70s; that's comparable to Sweden, but lower than Norway and Denmark, which all rank pretty highly across the board in virtually every democracy index that exists.

[zuricity]

^^^
my point is. I don't understand or see the relevance of the remark about a Swiss President , he or she , gets paid . That person was voted in . No lobbed Scimitar, from a watery tart.
Look at what those Royal scammers were up to today, whilst many poor people hit the food banks in the UK.

pretty rich from someone praising a country whose banks are still laundering Nazi loot from the holocaust. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-698398

nope i agree with you completely on this , but it is still nothing to do with what the President gets paid, or Royalty. Mind you ,you could ask Scouse2 fans about Royalty , they keep going on about being European Royalty. More scoungers living off the rest of the UK.
Worse than the Battenbergs ....

[PeterParker]

I see that Nunez is not £64m on Sky
With addons

[Dimples]

I see that Nunez is not £64m on Sky
With addons

Do Salah(Diaz) and Mane(Nunez) feel the love or do they feel cheated on?
They earned about 60% of the $$$s they could have, won two prestige trophies in six years and are now being replaced.
But hey they are Anfield legends, that is all that matters seemingly.

[Dimples]

Don't know how accurate the figs are but Nunez is supposedly on £100K a week with Diaz on £56K a week.
If accurate both are significantly underpaid compared to their transfer values of approx £85M and £40M and also what they could earn elsewhere. In addition Nunez is supposedly number 15 in the list of Liverpool top earners.
They are being hyped up as world class but being paid as average players.
If they deliver, it will not take long for them to start demanding pay packets that match their level of play.
More problems for Liverpool.

[kinkylola]

you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you

[johnny crossan]

you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you

? - if you mean HMQ she doesn't - that's the point

[Sparklehorse]

you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you

? - if you mean HMQ she doesn't - that's the point

The point is…….’burn her’ !!!!!!!!

[patrickblue]

you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you

? - if you mean HMQ she doesn't - that's the point

The point is…….’burn her’ !!!!!!!!

Only if she weighs the same as a duck.

[zuricity]

^^^^^ Python spoofed everyone and every profession . Their LQBGT or whatever they call themselves and wokeness is summed up in one sketch and name "Loretta".