Honest to God, when is all this bowing, scraping and fawning going to end? The Royal Wedding coverage was bad enough. I fear the Jubilee coverage may tip me over the edge. :drama:

 

Don't you know 'Saint Gary Barlow' is organising the bash Jupiter?

 

Kath

And for all those who say they do wonders for tourism - how come France is possibly the most visited place in the world. Getting shut of their royalty hasn't done France's tourism any harm has it? If the Royal Family does anything for tourism - it is purely for London - they don't benefit the rest of the country at all.

 

Although I agree with your overall sentiment, that is a rather silly argument. It's like comparing apples with oranges; very little of France's tourist culture has anything do with its royal tradition (with the possible exception of Versailles Castle, although it doesn't seem to be as big a foreign draw as the Eiffel Tower or Notre Dame), whereas many foreign tourists coming to the UK do so because of its links to the Royal Family (because they bloody well don't come there for the weather). If we did away with the Royal Family, would Buckingham Palace still be as big a draw without its occupants (or silly men in big hats?) I'm have no idea, but because royalty is more ingrained with "Britishness" from a worldwide perspective that it is with France, I wouldn't draw comparisons between the two.

Although I agree with your overall sentiment, that is a rather silly argument. It's like comparing apples with oranges; very little of France's tourist culture has anything do with its royal tradition (with the possible exception of Versailles Castle, although it doesn't seem to be as big a foreign draw as the Eiffel Tower or Notre Dame), whereas many foreign tourists coming to the UK do so because of its links to the Royal Family (because they bloody well don't come there for the weather). If we did away with the Royal Family, would Buckingham Palace still be as big a draw without its occupants (or silly men in big hats?) I'm have no idea, but because royalty is more ingrained with "Britishness" from a worldwide perspective that it is with France, I wouldn't draw comparisons between the two.

I think it would be at least as big an attraction if tourists were able to wander round the place (plus all their other homes elsewhere). There's no reason why the silly men in big hats shouldn't stay.

Ironic that a Labour MP makes a joke like that when its Labour who started the whole dependant culture.

Ironic that a Labour MP makes a joke like that when its Labour who started the whole dependant culture.

So are you suggesting that there should be no welfare state at all?

Ironic that a Labour MP makes a joke like that when its Labour who started the whole dependant culture.

Oh you can FUCK RIGHT OFF :manson: This whole 'dependency culture' stuff is utter wank - there aren't enough jobs to go around, and there haven't been for the last thirty years, pure and simple. But then, I suppose you'd rather see people starve because OBVIOUSLY they're just lazy if they don't have a job. Nothing else to it, right?

 

Oh, and if you'd care to read, it was an aide, not an MP.

I think it would be at least as big an attraction if tourists were able to wander round the place (plus all their other homes elsewhere). There's no reason why the silly men in big hats shouldn't stay.

 

Precisely...

 

Brett-Butler, I'm sorry, but you're wrong, tourists would still flock to UK, and I'll tell you why - the history, the heritage aspect. Look at Hampton Court palace.. Why do so many tourists go there, nothing whatsoever to do with the Windsors, that's all about The Tudors, Henry, Anne Boleyne, etc... And the last time I looked, the Tudors had been long gone for hundreds of years... No, sorry, it would be utterly irrelevant whether we have sitting Royals in Buck Palace or not, and the success of Hampton Court proves it..

 

Precisely...

 

Brett-Butler, I'm sorry, but you're wrong, tourists would still flock to UK, and I'll tell you why - the history, the heritage aspect. Look at Hampton Court palace.. Why do so many tourists go there, nothing whatsoever to do with the Windsors, that's all about The Tudors, Henry, Anne Boleyne, etc... And the last time I looked, the Tudors had been long gone for hundreds of years... No, sorry, it would be utterly irrelevant whether we have sitting Royals in Buck Palace or not, and the success of Hampton Court proves it..

 

Thank you Grimly! I'm sure we'd manage just fine if the RF weren't with us in the flesh!

Oh you can FUCK RIGHT OFF :manson: This whole 'dependency culture' stuff is utter wank - there aren't enough jobs to go around, and there haven't been for the last thirty years, pure and simple. But then, I suppose you'd rather see people starve because OBVIOUSLY they're just lazy if they don't have a job. Nothing else to it, right?

 

Oh, and if you'd care to read, it was an aide, not an MP.

 

 

Well as someone who studied sociology I actually know quite a lot about this issue. Yes, a proportion are either disabled, and can't work, like my mum, or are genuinely trying to get jobs, and they deserve the money, even though my mum can't.

But the majority of them are in a culture of poverty and their attitudes towards work are poor, they don't have the cultural capital and can see that they can get more than the average wage by not even working! I read an article on the BBC where a man a man and his family were on benefits. They were getting £30,000pa. He couldn't work because 'his area of work had dried out'. There's nothing wrong with going into a new area. They were spending £15 a week on sky, £35 on phones, and TWO HUNDRED AND FOURTY on shopping, which included Larger and 200 cigarettes. Now Im sorry but that is actually what I protest against. He has 6 kids and his wife is actually ill, so fair enough she can't work, but there is NO excuse for him. When my mum first became ill and my dad couldn't work, my family, which is 6 people, somehow lived on £7000 a year. Did we get any help? No we bloody didn't. Its still 6 of us now when Im back and the income is still 'only' £22,000 so there is no excuse all those benefits.

 

I AM AWARE that I'm doing my moralising thing but it really fucking pisses me off when families get on so easily without trying because of the structural issues of this country and my family has struggled so much for the passed 10 years.

Edited February 21, 201213 yr by jkac

Precisely...

 

Brett-Butler, I'm sorry, but you're wrong, tourists would still flock to UK, and I'll tell you why - the history, the heritage aspect. Look at Hampton Court palace.. Why do so many tourists go there, nothing whatsoever to do with the Windsors, that's all about The Tudors, Henry, Anne Boleyne, etc... And the last time I looked, the Tudors had been long gone for hundreds of years... No, sorry, it would be utterly irrelevant whether we have sitting Royals in Buck Palace or not, and the success of Hampton Court proves it..

Whereas you may be right (although I am a royalist but can more than appreciate your points) the fact that the Royal Family (actually, really only the Queen in terms of the draw - sure people don't come to the UK to see Charlie et al!) are there and vaguely descended from the Tudors (vaguely....) adds to the draw imo.

Whereas you may be right (although I am a royalist but can more than appreciate your points) the fact that the Royal Family (actually, really only the Queen in terms of the draw - sure people don't come to the UK to see Charlie et al!) are there and vaguely descended from the Tudors (vaguely....) adds to the draw imo.

 

 

Good grief Matt, 'vaguely' is a tad optimistic. I'm sure I've got more Tudor blood in me than the current residents of Buck Hoose... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Good grief Matt, 'vaguely' is a tad optimistic. I'm sure I've got more Tudor blood in me than the current residents of Buck Hoose... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I know, I was rather clutching at straws!

Well as someone who studied sociology I actually know quite a lot about this issue. Yes, a proportion are either disabled, and can't work, like my mum, or are genuinely trying to get jobs, and they deserve the money, even though my mum can't.

But the majority of them are in a culture of poverty and their attitudes towards work are poor, they don't have the cultural capital and can see that they can get more than the average wage by not even working! I read an article on the BBC where a man a man and his family were on benefits. They were getting £30,000pa. He couldn't work because 'his area of work had dried out'. There's nothing wrong with going into a new area. They were spending £15 a week on sky, £35 on phones, and TWO HUNDRED AND FOURTY on shopping, which included Larger and 200 cigarettes. Now Im sorry but that is actually what I protest against. He has 6 kids and his wife is actually ill, so fair enough she can't work, but there is NO excuse for him. When my mum first became ill and my dad couldn't work, my family, which is 6 people, somehow lived on £7000 a year. Did we get any help? No we bloody didn't. Its still 6 of us now when Im back and the income is still 'only' £22,000 so there is no excuse all those benefits.

 

I AM AWARE that I'm doing my moralising thing but it really fucking pisses me off when families get on so easily without trying because of the structural issues of this country and my family has struggled so much for the passed 10 years.

You can't base your opinion of people on benefits based on one example. After all, some men commit rape and murder but you wouldn't form your opinion of all men on that would you? Of course there are people fiddling benefits in the same way that there are people fiddling taxes. The latter cost many times more than the former.

Good grief Matt, 'vaguely' is a tad optimistic. I'm sure I've got more Tudor blood in me than the current residents of Buck Hoose... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Indeed. They are descendants of the house of Hanover, i.e. Germans.

You can't base your opinion of people on benefits based on one example. After all, some men commit rape and murder but you wouldn't form your opinion of all men on that would you? Of course there are people fiddling benefits in the same way that there are people fiddling taxes. The latter cost many times more than the former.

 

 

My point is that many people deliberately don't work because they know they are better off on benefits, and thats the fault of labour.

I just went off on a rant because when I see an 18 year old with 28 children from 36 fathers and other situations like that, it really riles me. Especially when my mum nearly died, worked full time until she got ill, but because she took off maternity leave when she had the four of us she didn't pay enough stamp in order to get support. I don't fully understand it but its just a very unfair system and many people take advantage of it.

My point is that many people deliberately don't work because they know they are better off on benefits, and thats the fault of labour.

I just went off on a rant because when I see an 18 year old with 28 children from 36 fathers and other situations like that, it really riles me. Especially when my mum nearly died, worked full time until she got ill, but because she took off maternity leave when she had the four of us she didn't pay enough stamp in order to get support. I don't fully understand it but its just a very unfair system and many people take advantage of it.

Well we need to bear in mind that HB for example (and just cause I happen to deal with it on a daily basis) was bought in by a Conservative Government in 1972 and rose in hard money terms from 4 billion to over 11 billion between 1988 and 1997 so to say it's ALL labour's fault is perhaps unfair.

 

From a statistical point of view what is interesting is that it didn't curb during what were the "Boom" years of 1997-2007 increasing at a much slower rate up to 17.5 billion (taking inflation into account). Labour were certainly guilty of not tackling the problem the problem of welfare dependancy during this time and relied on the premise that the UK economy would just continually boom and so we could afford this (due of course to Mr Brown's famous proclamation that he had broken this cycle). It is thought the bill for HB this year will be some 23.3 billion which is why the current goverment seem to have mass support for these cuts nationally (opinion polls wise).

 

I still maintain that Labour could conceivably won the previous election without G Brown at the helm and if they had tackled the perceived problem of the "benefit culture" in the UK.

 

In my job I do hear (and have heard over the years) the phrase uttered by people of "it doesn't pay me to work" that's true, and in some instances indeed it wouldn't, so you tackle that by either making the taper less and/ or cutting back the amount of benefit that can be claimed and who can claim it. All of this is being done by the current government (whether or not you agree with it is obviously down to personal political views).

 

Not everyone is on the fiddle that's true, problem is at the moment that no-one involved in the process of assessing is allowed to decide between those that "deserve" help and those that don't so EVERYONE gets lumped together, then you get into questions of who should do the deciding etc which is another argument altogether

Well as someone who studied sociology I actually know quite a lot about this issue. Yes, a proportion are either disabled, and can't work, like my mum, or are genuinely trying to get jobs, and they deserve the money, even though my mum can't.

But the majority of them are in a culture of poverty and their attitudes towards work are poor, they don't have the cultural capital and can see that they can get more than the average wage by not even working! I read an article on the BBC where a man a man and his family were on benefits. They were getting £30,000pa. He couldn't work because 'his area of work had dried out'. There's nothing wrong with going into a new area. They were spending £15 a week on sky, £35 on phones, and TWO HUNDRED AND FOURTY on shopping, which included Larger and 200 cigarettes. Now Im sorry but that is actually what I protest against. He has 6 kids and his wife is actually ill, so fair enough she can't work, but there is NO excuse for him. When my mum first became ill and my dad couldn't work, my family, which is 6 people, somehow lived on £7000 a year. Did we get any help? No we bloody didn't. Its still 6 of us now when Im back and the income is still 'only' £22,000 so there is no excuse all those benefits.

 

I AM AWARE that I'm doing my moralising thing but it really fucking pisses me off when families get on so easily without trying because of the structural issues of this country and my family has struggled so much for the passed 10 years.

Great, one example. There's barely any work ANYWHERE in this country. There are 300,000 or so vacancies in this country for 2.7m unemployed, and that's not taking into account how many of those jobs require specialised qualifications etc. To blame this 'dependency culture' on Labour when it's something both parties have culpability for in different areas (the Conservatives for taking away the mainstay of working class employment, mining, without finding an adequate replacement, and Labour for going along with it and not finding an alternative sector to provide employment when in office. Both for hiding the scandal of employment figures by shoving people onto disability benefit if they couldn't at all be expected to ever find another job) is completely pig-headed though.

 

It's also something that isn't the fault of the welfare state. The question shouldn't be 'how do we take away their benefits?', but 'how do we provide enough employment so that people like these can get employment?'. If you're rejected year after year after year, you're not going to believe it's ever worth applying.

My point is that many people deliberately don't work because they know they are better off on benefits, and thats the fault of labour.

I just went off on a rant because when I see an 18 year old with 28 children from 36 fathers and other situations like that, it really riles me. Especially when my mum nearly died, worked full time until she got ill, but because she took off maternity leave when she had the four of us she didn't pay enough stamp in order to get support. I don't fully understand it but its just a very unfair system and many people take advantage of it.

The problem of people being worse off in work than on benefits has persisted for as long as I can remember - and that's rather a long time. Successive governments have failed to find a solution.

 

I still think it is outrageous that so many people in work need to claim benefits to supplement their income. Anyone in full time work should be paid enough to have a decent standard of living. As it is, employers are being subsidised by the government. That may be acceptable if the employer is a small start-up company. It is not acceptable if the employer is Tesco or Sainsbury's. The aim should be to work towards a minimum wage that pays for a decent standard of living (including being able to go on holiday, not necessarily abroad) and where someone working full time on the minimum wage pays no income tax.

The problem of people being worse off in work than on benefits has persisted for as long as I can remember - and that's rather a long time. Successive governments have failed to find a solution.

 

I still think it is outrageous that so many people in work need to claim benefits to supplement their income. Anyone in full time work should be paid enough to have a decent standard of living. As it is, employers are being subsidised by the government. That may be acceptable if the employer is a small start-up company. It is not acceptable if the employer is Tesco or Sainsbury's. The aim should be to work towards a minimum wage that pays for a decent standard of living (including being able to go on holiday, not necessarily abroad) and where someone working full time on the minimum wage pays no income tax.

 

Spot on... And these "Work-Fare" slavery programmes just make matters worse, driving down wages and devaluing the labour market... The Corporations are using "Globalisation" as an excuse to empoverish and enslave workers. It needs an international solution to sort out. Perhaps the UN should be imposing international labour laws that prevent Corporations exploiting workers in places such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc..?

 

Just what you'd expect from the Wail. The BBC started a three part documentary series about Betsie tonight. I look forward to the three part series on Republicanism by way of balance.

 

Well at the very least, the BBC seems to have acknowledged the Republican viewpoint. Taken from the BBC website yesterday:

 

Anti-monarchy group Republic has accused the BBC of bias in its documentary series The Diamond Queen.

 

Chief executive Graham Smith said he had written to BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten listing "distortions, half-truths and fabrications" in the series.

 

"What was presented as a piece of biographical journalism was in fact pro-monarchy polemic," he said.

 

A BBC spokeswoman said: "The BBC abides by its requirement to be duly impartial across its output."

 

Mr Smith said Republic had called for an investigation into the programme broadcast earlier this month and challenged presenter Andrew Marr to an on-air debate about its content.

 

His letter accused the BBC of "misleading viewers, silencing dissenting voices and shielding our head of state from any genuine scrutiny".

 

Mr Smith said that the documentary was the "latest and most provocative example of a long-standing pattern of behaviour at the BBC in reporting on the monarchy". He said the "very obvious bias" could be seen across all its output, including TV, radio and online.