By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Like Bobby Hazells addition, it’ll likely have some highly unpalatable and disturbing stuff in there, some perhaps true, some unsubstantiated but, call me naive, a lot of unsubstantiated comment is invariably untrue and until better people than me can substantiate it, then maybe it’s best left unbelieved.
There was a fire bombing case recently where Starmer was apparently, we were told, shielding a cover up for similar disturbing actions but when the case came to court it became clear that the accusations against Starmer were utter bollocks and it was outside influencers spreading these untruths. I kind of wish I hadn’t read that stuff in the first place.
What I would like to know is why the extremities on both sides of the political world seem to spend so much time looking for the worst in people.
That I feel, unfortunately, is the real cancer in today’s society.
Like Bobby Hazells addition, it’ll likely have some highly unpalatable and disturbing stuff in there, some perhaps true, some unsubstantiated but, call me naive, a lot of unsubstantiated comment is invariably untrue and until better people than me can substantiate it, then maybe it’s best left unbelieved.
There was a fire bombing case recently where Starmer was apparently, we were told, shielding a cover up for similar disturbing actions but when the case came to court it became clear that the accusations against Starmer were utter bollocks and it was outside influencers spreading these untruths. I kind of wish I hadn’t read that stuff in the first place.
What I would like to know is why the extremities on both sides of the political world seem to spend so much time looking for the worst in people.
That I feel, unfortunately, is the real cancer in today’s society.
People are now looking for the worst in people of power because history says a lot were wronguns. Scepticism isnt a cancer. Lies are a cancer. Pedophiles are a cancer..
I dont necessarily disagree with a monarchy type set up, but I do question the individuals involved in it these days. Theres something really seedy about the royals, the BBC, Hollywood because there have been so many accounts of terrible behaviour towards vulnerable people.
But wasn't the 12% a reduction from 25% because of the wind farms and isn't the money for official duties, staff and upkeep of historic buildings?
The "deal" with Cameron was to put all the funding I one place i.e. the Crown Estate money rather than money from different pots.
And before anyone gets the wrong impression I am a long, long way from a royalist.
It is indeed the case that it was originally 25%, so this represents some progress, but you don't have to be a raving Marxist to be of the opinion that the profits from our off-shore wind should go towards investment in renewable energy rather than swelling the royal coffers. As to how it's all spent, this is far from clear as the Royal administrators are notoriously cagey despite repeated freedom of information requests from journalists. And the Crown still gets lots of dosh from multiple sources - as well as the Sovereign Grant (untaxed) and Crown Estate, there's also the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, so-called private estates that are not private enough to pay corporation tax (even income tax and capital gains tax are only paid voluntarily, and of course no inheritance tax is paid either).
We have the most expensive monarchy in Europe by far in terms of state support, and one that benefits from unique tax treatment available to nobody else.
It is indeed the case that it was originally 25%, so this represents some progress, but you don't have to be a raving Marxist to be of the opinion that the profits from our off-shore wind should go towards investment in renewable energy rather than swelling the royal coffers. As to how it's all spent, this is far from clear as the Royal administrators are notoriously cagey despite repeated freedom of information requests from journalists. And the Crown still gets lots of dosh from multiple sources - as well as the Sovereign Grant (untaxed) and Crown Estate, there's also the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, so-called private estates that are not private enough to pay corporation tax (even income tax and capital gains tax are only paid voluntarily, and of course no inheritance tax is paid either).
We have the most expensive monarchy in Europe by far in terms of state support, and one that benefits from unique tax treatment available to nobody else.
In a nutshell.
My Father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic.
It is indeed the case that it was originally 25%, so this represents some progress, but you don't have to be a raving Marxist to be of the opinion that the profits from our off-shore wind should go towards investment in renewable energy rather than swelling the royal coffers. As to how it's all spent, this is far from clear as the Royal administrators are notoriously cagey despite repeated freedom of information requests from journalists. And the Crown still gets lots of dosh from multiple sources - as well as the Sovereign Grant (untaxed) and Crown Estate, there's also the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, so-called private estates that are not private enough to pay corporation tax (even income tax and capital gains tax are only paid voluntarily, and of course no inheritance tax is paid either).
We have the most expensive monarchy in Europe by far in terms of state support, and one that benefits from unique tax treatment available to nobody else.
And it's not as if their rents can be described as anything other than, commercial! Equally, in renting out to public institutions like the NHS, schools etc., the ultimate payer to the royals for the rents they charge is...the UK tax payer. Again!
Why Prince Wilhem needs to be a billionaire, isn't clear to me.
I reckon we are all getting outraged by the wrong thing. There are much worse people/companies out there paying less tax.
I'm ambivalent about the Royals, but after living in Windsor I can see that they do have an impact on the local tourist economy at least, and the royal parks are great places to be in.
Whats the alternative, we have more politicians around?
I've tried to work it out, the Royal family cost me, personally between £1.30 or £7 per year.
I'd rather my money goes to them than someone like Farage
They won't pave over the parks as soon as the monarchy is abolished. Windsor will still have a castle. The French haven't had a monarchy for 237 years, but people still flock to Versailles.
Constitutional monarchies are over-represented at the top of the 'freedom in the world' index. That should count for something. Slim the monarchy down- absolutely. Replace? Not for me.
The UK isn't one of them though. The highest ranked in that list are the Scandi countries, who also have greater social mobility. I wonder how they differ from the UK?
They won't pave over the parks as soon as the monarchy is abolished. Windsor will still have a castle. The French haven't had a monarchy for 237 years, but people still flock to Versailles.
Excellent point, and it is, of course, true of all the stuff associated with royalty that tourists want to see. The argument that no longer having a royal family would hurt tourism is nonsense. We are about to see this with Buckingham Palace, where tourists will continue to go despite Charles and Camilla no longer living there.
Well it's not like elected Govts don't have dubios histories is it? I'm not defending the wrong religious groups do, but the church provided social support to those in need long before Governments have and, indeed, laid the moral foundation on which Governments have built social policy.
Religious groups also boost social cohesion, research has shown.
Churches I have attended have provided no strings attached support to the homeless (accommodation in the church hall for free) and drug addicts (creation of a gym they could use for free).
Very few religious organisations are radical concentration camps led by fanatics like David Koresh. It's dangerous to make sweeping generalisations based on extremes and that also sows division.
Christianity may be in decline in England and Wales but in the 2021 census, more people (53%) still identified as having a religion than not. Before anyone says anything to the contrary, Christianity was still the dominant faith, at 37%.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
And it's not as if their rents can be described as anything other than, commercial! Equally, in renting out to public institutions like the NHS, schools etc., the ultimate payer to the royals for the rents they charge is...the UK tax payer. Again!
Why Prince Wilhem needs to be a billionaire, isn't clear to me.
"Why Prince Wilhem needs to be a billionaire, isn't clear to me."
Quite. There's a delicious irony to the royals being so wealthy: They are under so much public and media scrutiny that they could never spend much of their fortune. They'd get hammered if they bought a Lamborghini.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
Religious groups also boost social cohesion, research has shown.
Churches I have attended have provided no strings attached support to the homeless (accommodation in the church hall for free) and drug addicts (creation of a gym they could use for free).
Very few religious organisations are radical concentration camps led by fanatics like David Koresh. It's dangerous to make sweeping generalisations based on extremes and that also sows division.
Christianity may be in decline in England and Wales but in the 2021 census, more people (53%) still identified as having a religion than not. Before anyone says anything to the contrary, Christianity was still the dominant faith, at 37%.
Lots of unhealthy things contribute to 'social cohesion'.
How many religions seek to transform social conditions rather than simply to relieve them? Why would Christian churches even want to, seeing how suffering is seen as redemptive?
Lots of unhealthy things contribute to 'social cohesion'.
How many religions seek to transform social conditions rather than simply to relieve them? Why would Christian churches even want to, seeing how suffering is seen as redemptive?
There are many examples of churches and Christians trying to transform society. A few examples would be: The Tolpuddle Martyrs were committed Christians, many of whom were lay preachers in the Methodist Church. Wilberforce and others in the Clapham Sect who led the movement to abolish the transatlantic slave trade. Martin Luther King Jr and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference who led the Civil Rights movement.
Redemptive suffering is a Catholic idea not usually found in Protestant theology, and in any case, I don't think it could be used as an excuse not to seek to change social conditions.
There are many examples of churches and Christians trying to transform society. A few examples would be: The Tolpuddle Martyrs were committed Christians, many of whom were lay preachers in the Methodist Church. Wilberforce and others in the Clapham Sect who led the movement to abolish the transatlantic slave trade. Martin Luther King Jr and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference who led the Civil Rights movement.
Redemptive suffering is a Catholic idea not usually found in Protestant theology, and in any case, I don't think it could be used as an excuse not to seek to change social conditions.
That's not the Churches though, that's factions within their religions.
Religious groups also boost social cohesion, research has shown.
Churches I have attended have provided no strings attached support to the homeless (accommodation in the church hall for free) and drug addicts (creation of a gym they could use for free).
Very few religious organisations are radical concentration camps led by fanatics like David Koresh. It's dangerous to make sweeping generalisations based on extremes and that also sows division.
Christianity may be in decline in England and Wales but in the 2021 census, more people (53%) still identified as having a religion than not. Before anyone says anything to the contrary, Christianity was still the dominant faith, at 37%.
There is a lot of unglamours work the Church does in my local community, I know this first hand because I volunteered at my local food bank and only found out it was run by the Church when I was doing the induction. Funny thing was, not single other volunteer was religious. It was during my time volunteering that I learned about all the other community work they do. So much going on that I never knew about and is so easy to over look when your focused on your own life.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.