Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, ian__marshall said:

Bet the Scousers are livid listening to this after yesterday. Top wumming from the King 🤣

Probably booing this

Posted
3 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

Bet the Scousers are livid listening to this after yesterday. Top wumming from the King 🤣

The club were founded by a Conservative politician and member of the Orange Order, so perfectly appropriate :englandsmile4wf:

Posted
1 hour ago, bovril said:

I think in Italy parliament chooses an elder statesman of politics, which seems quite sensible. Hague wouldn't be a bad choice to be honest. I suppose you could argue we have our own version of that where the monarch rules with the tacit approval of parliament.

 

Having said that, getting the UK parliament to decide on an ex politician to be head of state would probably be a car crash. 

Not if there’s enough money for bribes, which is one thing you don’t get with a monarchy. Having a president always ends up with a system like fifa.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, ian__marshall said:

Bet the Scousers are livid listening to this after yesterday. Top wumming from the King 🤣

Mind games. Hoping Bocelli could've done a version of WYS. 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

If we were a republic, we would have to elect a president as a head of state (with no powers) to represent the U.K. on the international stage at many public events 

 

you’d expect that to be a political figure of some description…… given the quality of politician we’ve seen over the years, i reckon we’re better off with Charles and then William !

 

president Blair? President Hague ?  President brown.?  President ashdown ?   Heaven forbid ….. president Johnson ! 

sometimes pragmatism works ……..

 

There are only two sorts of ex politicians.  Those who achieved nothing and therefore made few enemies, and those who did achieve something which by definition was something that half the country opposed.  So who should be president, the nonentity or the unpopular?  I agree, pragmatism rules OK!

 

[Edit - I suppose there is a third category of politician, the one who achieved nothing but still managed to get lots of people to hate him.  Or her.  I wonder if one of them should be appointed as a "unifying" candidate? ;)]

Edited by dsr-burnley
Posted
9 hours ago, Zear0 said:

"An excellent day for democracy...and acceptance of freedom of speech"  in that the people who's view you support were permitted to do as they pleased, whilst those you disagree with, and who were protesting peacefully, were arrested?  Interesting slant on freedom and democracy there :S.

I hope we can all agree that there are occasions when the right to protest is overridden by the right of other people to do what they want to do.  Let's take an extreme example, the memorial to your late owner the game after his helicopter crashed.  Would anyone believe that an anti-Thailand protester should have been allowed to wave banners and shout slogans during the memorial ceremony?  I hope not.

 

So that's the principle, that sometimes freedom to protest is overridden by circumstances.  The only question is, in this case, should that freedom have been overridden?  Well, that I suppose depends how much disruption they intended to cause, and how much they would have spoiled the enjoyment of the people around them.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

[Edit - I suppose there is a third category of politician, the one who achieved nothing but still managed to get lots of people to hate him.  Or her.  I wonder if one of them should be appointed as a "unifying" candidate? ;)]

Being cynical, I think this is the majority, particularly over the past ten years or so. Cameron, May, Truss, Wee-Smug, Fox, Mad Nad, Fabricant, Davies - it’s a list of nonentities that could run into hundreds.

Edited by LanguedocFox
  • Like 2
Guest worth_the_wait
Posted
7 hours ago, TJQuik said:

Have any of the royalists here looked up where the jewels on the crown come from?

I believe they all came out of the ground.  Although it's possible the odd one might have been found somewhere on the surface.

Posted
8 hours ago, TJQuik said:

Have any of the royalists here looked up where the jewels on the crown come from?

Stolen from other countries like most things were during the British Empire.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Guest worth_the_wait
Posted
11 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Stolen from other countries like most things were during the British Empire.

Wiki lists 277 Empires.      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

 

I wonder if all of those have returned items that might have been historically "acquired" in a slightly dubious manner?

 

And what about stealing land?   I reckon there must be 100's of millions of people living in lands whose ancestors had no right to be there.

 

And what about ..................

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...