***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
By what means are the loan repayments made ~ deducted from salary, made voluntarily etc.?
2nd volume started - 1st one can be found HERE
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 16 Dec 10 at 00:47
|
|
Deducted automatically as a part of the PAYE system I believe, so no different to a tax.
|
I agree with SO's lunchtime thesis in full.
Re. deductions via PAYE, that is how it works now. It is also why I think those who move abroad can/will escape repayment.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 14:59
|
|
If it is part of PAYE what happens with the self employed? I can see a cock up looming with this!
Last edited by: teabelly on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 15:08
|
|
The self employed have to do a tax return, it'll get collected then. It won't be perfect, but on balance it seems like a reasonable solution if we are to continue to pretend that we can send 50% to university.
|
Certainly it will be better than the system before last. I had a mortgage style student loan. I was unemployed for 8 months, and for that whole time the student loans co. continued to take £125 a month from my bank account every month.
I could have filed the paperwork to get that stopped, but that would have taken "3 to 6" months, after which I would get those months payments back "sometime after the decision has been accepted". A default would have been put on my credit record had I just stopped paying.
This is a better system that that, surely?
Anyway, as as appendix to my last post, most (or probably more fairly ,many) self employed manipulate the system to pay almost no tax at all. I can't imagine that this will change that.
Last edited by: Statistical Outlier on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 15:14
|
Cable>>For someone earning £30k pa, the repayment will be £68 per month, say £17 per week.
That's somewhat disingenuous. £68 per month is £816 p.a. That's 4.5% of £18,000 - or 3% of £27,000. At that rate it isn't even covering the interest (assuming that 0.5% base rates will not continue indefinitely) let alone contributing to the repayments.
|
>> 3% of £27,000. At that rate it isn't even covering the interest (assuming that 0.5%
>> base rates will not continue indefinitely) let alone contributing to the repayments.
>>
eureka. Looks like you now finally understand the proposed system. Only those earning circa £40k pa or more will end up paying the full whack. The poor and squeezed middle won't pay back the full amount.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 15:18
|
More likely... the Government isn't being honest.
Those earning 40k and more are most definitely the squeezed middle.
|
I know of people earning £40-£50 / hour for 40-50 hrs per week and they have paid back zero Student loans.
How?
They are employed by their own limited company, pay themselves say £7.00 / hour and draw dividends of say every quarter of £10k-£15K-£20K. So in effect earn £70K+ /year
Student loans are repaid from PAYE, not dividends
|
FB, I know people doing exactly that but at £500-£750 a day.
Tax avoidance is just that no matter how you paint it. Surely that is a separate issue that, if sorted would do the countries finances no end of good? Sadly, the current government appears to have no stomach to do so.
|
>> More likely... the Government isn't being honest.
>>
>> Those earning 40k and more are most definitely the squeezed middle.
>>
According to Mike Warburton, senior tax partner at the accountants Grant Thornton, at present there are around three million in the 40% band.
www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ashe-2010/2010-all-employees.pdf
www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ashe-2010/tab1-7a.xls
just over 21million plus people employed
Median earnings £21,221
Mean earnings £26,510
80 percentile earnings £35,781
Last edited by: John H on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 16:14
|
|
John, thanks, useful figures. It's often easy to forget just how privileged you are. The 80% income figure is sobering.
|
|
So why should we - as taxpayers - be paying for degrees that don't add anything to anybody's lives. If they're not going to be repaying the loans then they're not going to be worth the degrees - so the state is paying for useless degrees. (If you take the view that a degree is a starting point for improving salary, which appears to be the starting point here.)
|
|
I find it utterly absurd that these protesters think the state, IE taxpayers, should be funding their higher education.
|
I don't think it's an absurd position Z. For one, it has been how it works for years. For the generation that got free university education on merit (and I just scrape into that category) to now deny that to the next generation is rather unfair. Well educated graduates contribute a lot to the country, not least in taxes, over their lifetime.
Of course, when University Edication was free it cost far less as it was far more elite. I have a lot of sympathy that the best of the best, those that will be a great asset to the UK, should go for free. The Russell Group might be a good way of selecting those students. The other institutions could (should?) sink or swim on the quality of the courses they provide and therefore people's willingness to pay.
Oh, and it's depressingly predictable that as soon as a knee-jerk, superficially attractive statement is expressed there are instantly three 'likes'. Edit: 7.
Last edited by: Statistical Outlier on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 17:26
|
I think we've cracked it, SO.
Russell Group universities state funded. A grant given to each student equivalent to the number of UCAS points achieved.
All other Universities privatised, and if you want to go, you pay for it.
That way we get something like 60,000-100,000 students a year who are state funded, and the rest of the population are allowed to go if they want.
|
>> Russell Group universities state funded. A grant given to each student equivalent to the number
>> of UCAS points achieved.
>>
>> All other Universities privatised, and if you want to go, you pay for it.
Oh boy... the infamous "russell group"... a private, self advertising, group of universities... some of which are in the top twenty of British universities and many who aren't... why on earth should we pick them for special treatment?! I see that they have managed to persuade you that they are the best... even though other, independent, reports would indicate otherwise...
A better bet, if you insist on this method of screening would be the top 20 in some of the "guides" that are published in the papers... or even just fund all those who appear in the World Top 100 Universities and are British and based in the UK (England?)...
|
>> I don't think it's an absurd position Z. For one, it has been how it
>> works for years. For the generation that got free university education on merit (and I
>> just scrape into that category) to now deny that to the next generation is rather
>> unfair. Well educated graduates contribute a lot to the country, not least in taxes, over
>> their lifetime.
It worked because those who went to university got there on merit. *( aided by a grant if required) This present shower think its a basic human right. Its not, not by a long chalk.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 17:38
|
|
Z, I think that's the most sensible thing I've ever heard from you.
|
Am I the only one wondering why it is that students, who apparently are bright enough to go to Uni are so stupid that they simply cannot work out, in real terms, the true potential cost to themselves.
Ive seen so many on TV suggesting that the thought of such high potential fees will scare people off even if the reality will not be anywhere near as bad. Surely these potential students can operate a calculator?
Theres seems so much focus on the fear of Uni fees. Well, I stopped short of going in 1998 because I thought it wasnt worth the money then and I know a guy who dropped out of Computer Science due to mounting debt ( it didnt hold him back, he had the skills so suceeded anyway ). This student debt thing is frankly nothing new and the way the opposers are glossing over this fact makes me very sceptical about their real motovations.
|
|
Crumbs, Stu, I had you in your fifties, not late twenties.
|
|
No wonder I apparently should look like Martin Brundle. Hmm. 50's? Charming.
|
Nothing new about self interest Stu. For a classic example, take the US Tea Partiers and their opposition of high taxes, the deficit and socialised medicine.
You try and take Medicare away from any of them and see what happens. That's different - their socialised medicine is what they paid for in their taxes. It's everyone else's socialised medicine that shouldn't be allowed.
Likewise, notice the sudden deafening silence when they realise they might have to reconcile their rabit opposition to both tax and the deficit. Shallow, badly thought out, dishonest, self interested politics bugs the hell out of me, but sadly is the norm on both sides of the pond.
|
|
Its perplexes me that Labour ( who dont have any policies ) and students ( who think the world owes them something ) think they can treat the general public like idiots, spouting this rubbish. They arent generating much sympathy, just looking rather foolish.
|
>> I find it utterly absurd that these protesters think the state, IE taxpayers, should be
>> funding their higher education.
>>
Agreed. The current level of funding is 60% state to 40% student.
The new system will change that to 40% state to 60% student, but with a skewing towards the low earners paying 0% to the richest paying disproportionately more. Of the 57 Liberal Democrat MPs involved, it was this skewing that persuaded 28 to vote for the fees and eight to abstain. 21 voted against. Even Simon Hughes, who had said he would be against, was persuaded to abstain.
|
Although I fully grasp the funding problem, I find it difficult not to feel anthing but sorry for today's and tomorrow's students.
They see the baby boomer generation who have had the very best of everything, from cheap housing, good pensions, halfway decent secondary education, cheap housing, and not only free tuition, but grant supported tuition. The self same baby boomer generation who now meanly snipe at them given any opportunity.
If I were in their shoes I would be livid - I think their protests are quite restrained really - perhaps we have apathy to thank for that?
I think that one way round the problem would be to make all but AAA students take at least a year out between college and university where they get a proper glimpse of real life, the discipline of getting into work on time and presentablly turned out, etc, before making the choice to continue study. I think University is simply seen as the automatic next step after school and college.
|
|
....or "uni" as it's annoyingly called these days. Voice of reason NC.
|
"They see the baby boomer generation who have had the very best of everything, from cheap housing, good pensions, halfway decent secondary education, cheap housing, and not only free tuition, but grant supported tuition. The self same baby boomer generation who now meanly snipe at them given any opportunity."
We had to earn it, I did anyway. Today they think its a right.
|
>>We had to earn it, I did anyway.
I'm not saying you didn't Z, but, in your day, it was possible to pass through the education system and be educated according to your needs, leave without debt, and find the lower rungs of the housing ladder within reach. It's not obvious to see how young people could do that today.
|
>>We had to earn it, I did anyway.
>>
>> I'm not saying you didn't Z, but, in your day, it was possible to pass
>> through the education system and be educated according to your needs, leave without debt, and
>> find the lower rungs of the housing ladder within reach. It's not obvious to see
>> how young people could do that today.
Not really.
Only the top 20% of my school went to university. The rest distributed through apprenticeships, vocational training schemes, company training schemes, technical colleges, etc etc. University wasn't seen as a norm or a right.
AS for Housing? I was 30 before I could afford to take the first jump on the ladder.
Today they expect to go to university as a norm or a right. Its actually an excuse not to have to work.
|
>>apprenticeships, vocational training schemes, company training schemes
Yes, those routes aren't anywhere near as available today as they once were. A number of the larger companies who took on a number of apprentices every year either no longer exist, or have simply closed their schemes.
>>AS for Housing? I was 30 before I could afford to take the first jump on the ladder.
Yes, but, it was _possible_ for you. You didn't leave education or training saddled with debt, and you didn't enter a completly unaffordable housing market, you had access to some job security and could hold a credible meeting with your bank manager - again, this simply isn't true anymore.
>>Its actually an excuse not to have to work.
If anything, I take a more cynical view. I think it's an excuse to keep them off the unemployment figures, and the previous shower of a government has been happy for that situation to grow and grow. I don't particularly blame the students for being blown by the prevailing wind into higher education - I don't think there's much alternative.
|
>> We had to earn it, I did anyway. Today they think its a right.
>>
>>
Agreeing with Z again, bad habit. :-)
I worked damed hard for the little I have. Until these so called students do the same I have no sympathy whatsoever for them.
|
Yep good post NC.
We (self & Mrs F) are at the lower age of the range that has *done OK*.... made a bit of money when housing was cheap then rose like crazy, mortgage interest tax relief assisted a bit of house dealing, job for life if you wanted it, the so called gold plated company pensions, when redundancy was offered the terms were amazing... just take the cash and go and get another job, running 18mpg cars because fuel was cheap..... and so on.
It would be so easy to sit back looking from afar at every aspect of youth..... except.... we had our kids almost 20yrs later than some of our friends so now have early/mid teens to guide through this uncertain future they face.
Having said that I hate property damage and disrespect whatever the perceived root cause so can't excuse what we've seen on TV over the last 24hrs.
|
There isnt much point looking back on how things were in the past, whatever else it is, its gone, it was a different time, different circumstances and Im afraid each generation will have their own difficulties.
My nans first home in the latge 40's, a cottage on a farm where my grandad worked, had no electricity and no running water, the well being a mile away. She raised two babies there and gave birth there aswell.
This generation has it better than it knows in some respects. They have more rights, more choices/options and a safer world to live in. They have zero historical perspective about just how cushy their lives really are.
|
>> Although I fully grasp the funding problem, I find it difficult not to feel anthing
>> but sorry for today's and tomorrow's students.
>>
Why?
>> They see the baby boomer generation who have had the very best of everything, from
>> cheap housing, good pensions, halfway decent secondary education, cheap housing, and not only free tuition,
>> but grant supported tuition. The self same baby boomer generation who now meanly snipe at
>> them given any opportunity.
>>
In the early 1980's, there were less than40 Universities in England, taking in about 14% of the 18-21 age cohort, i.e. about 1 in 7 young people went into University on leaving school.
Those were the days when Britain was a wealthy nation. It was wealthy during the Blair boom years when universities expanded enormously. But then came Brown and the Bust.
>> If I were in their shoes I would be livid - I think their protests
>> are quite restrained really - perhaps we have apathy to thank for that?
>>
Why? They are being offered a new system of fees/loans which is fairer for the poorest 25% of the students than the current system. Only those whose earnings take them in to the country's top 20% league will pay anything like the full amount back, and even then spread over 30 years at a very low monthly cost.
www.factsonfees.com/new-system.php
Last edited by: John H on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 22:00
|
from Official website: If the graduate earns £25,000 pa, he/she will pay back at a rate of less than £1 a day.
www.bis.gov.uk/studentfinance
www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-education/students/student-finance/myth-buster
"Q - I’m worried that I’m going to be saddled with a lifetime of debt as a result of the changes
A – A graduate earning £25,000 per year would repay their loan at a rate of £6.92 per week. If earnings fall, then the repayments will fall as well. Graduates won’t have to pay back anything until they are earning more than £21,000 a year.
The £21,000 earning threshold will be uprated annually in line with earnings from April 2016.
Any outstanding payments will be written off after 30 years. If you are in lower paid work or unpaid work (which may include time bringing up a family) you won’t be asked to make a contribution. "
Last edited by: John H on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 22:14
|
>>They see the baby boomer generation who have had the very best of everything
Perhaps they do, but the point that seems to have been missed in the debates that I have heard is the scale change in numbers.
I went to the grammar school at a time when 30% of children passed the 11 plus. The other 70% as a rule were never going to get anywhere near a university education. Of the 30% at the grammar, about 20% might go on to a university. That was about 6% overall. So 94% weren't participating anyway.
Isn't it better, assuming they are bright enough to get anything useful from it, that nearer 50% can have a university education without paying any fees until such time as they are in a position to do so?
It's also wrong to suppose that no sacrifices were involved for those 6%. My family were by no means well off, but still made sacrifices to support me with living costs to augment a partial grant. Do yesterday's protesters expect everything gratis, with no pain at all?
I have always been inclined to the socialist way of thinking and still am, but I couldn't watch yesterday's events without thinking a few tear gas grenades and water cannon could have been put to use. Might even have been preferable to the appalling kettling which I should think is guaranteed to raise the temperature - like confining explosive, it just makes the bang more destructive.
|
You know the real tragedy in all this?
This whoha is hiding the real issues these youngsters face. No, or very little pension at the end of their working lives.
As a baby boomer, I am grateful I have one. This generation have no chance.
|
>> No, or very little pension at the end of their working lives.
That's certainly a problem, though they have time to do something about it. The baby boomers whose pensions have been depradated by tax increases on funds and the withdrawal of final salary benefits by employers who can no longer fund them haven't that opportunity.
I am concerned for my son though - his vocation means he will probably never be a high earner.
|
>> You know the real tragedy in all this?
>> This whoha is hiding the real issues these youngsters face
That may or may not be the real tragedy Zero. But I doubt very much that that was in the minds of the demonstrators or the rioters who joined them. The remote future is of little interest to the young. No one of around 20 is thinking about their pension on retirement.
When I went to university I had a minor competitive private scholarship, topped up by a county or State grant and my long-suffering parents, who were far from rich. To my eternal discredit I made little use of these privileges and more or less threw them away. I'm not saying they didn't do me good, but I certainly didn't take them seriously or behave responsibly. I was a bit like that nice Gilmour kid, ripped as a stoat, swinging on the chandeliers and later feeling very apologetic.
I must say I think the government is missing a trick here. If the mass admission of semi-literate (to put it politely) reason-by-numbers spoonfed diploma wonks in non-subjects whose names always end in '... studies' is eating up most of the education budget, why aren't banks and other businesses with enormous cash mountains being encouraged to endow private scholarships at proper universities? It's a Toryish sort of idea that would make everyone look good.
Day before yesterday's demo was a chapter of accidents. Once again the demo organisers couldn't police their own event, failed to inform the police of that fact, and later blamed the met for provoking violence. Everyone always blames everyone else on these occasions, but in my experience the truth of 'who started it' is always immediately lost, obscured, by the storm of recriminations and allegations. That suits everyone except the truly innocent.
Old bill doesn't seem to have been too bright in protecting the heir to the throne and his consort, perhaps because of communication glitches between the Queen's outriders and the, er, riot squad. A Phantom VI Rolls-Royce, quite a rare car made specially for heads of state and the like, is a big strong jalopy but not armoured in any way, and its occupants could have been hurt. The people who threw paint on it, broke one of its windows and allegedly poked the Duchess of Cornwall in the ribs with a stick were damn lucky not to be shot. Might have been good if one or two had been, non-lethally for preference. That might concentrate minds which at the moment are running on some half-witted auto mode.
|
|
I understand that at least one member of the DPS had in fact drawn his gun. It was a close run thing
|
>>>I understand that at least one member of the DPS had in fact drawn his gun. It was a close run thing.
I'd been thinking of this over toast with the re-runs on BBC news this morning. In fact one might argue that firearms should have been drawn as the protestors had probably already crossed the line drawn up in royal protection squad guidelines. Had any of them been a nutter with true intent to harm the opportunity was there for the taking.
|
>> I understand that at least one member of the DPS had in fact drawn his
>> gun. It was a close run thing
>>
If that is true, and probably if it isn't, if a demonstrator had got the car door open there would have been a demonstrator shot. I don't know the protection squads rules of engagement, but the ones I have operated under would allow that.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 11 Dec 10 at 16:00
|
|
I have no inside knowledge of how these things work, but if I'd been prodding Camilla in the ribs with a stick through the broken window I'd be considering myself lucky not to have been plugged given the Met's record.
|
...I'd be considering myself lucky not to have been plugged given the Met's record...
Camilla's lucky not to have been plugged, given the Met's record. :)
|
|
The rules for the DPS are the same as for any use of lethal force. There must be a threat to the life of another (the principal) or the officer. Justification is a matter for the officer and cannot be given by any written guidelines. If you shoot someone, it's the court that must be satisfied you were justified in doing so. Sec. 3 of the criminal law act and common law applies. There are no special rules because you're protecting royalty. If an officer were to be prosecuted you might hope that a jury would not convict (and a judge direct) according to circumstance, i.e. protecting royalty. But this is mere conjecture.
|
|
Much as I subscribe to the idea that I personally wouldn't touch Camilla with a barge pole, I think a masked hoodlum with a pointy stick poking Camilla and the heir to the throne is shoot first and ask later territory.
|
|
Quite. It might be easier to explain why you did, than why you didn't if HRH got skewered.
|
|
A large proportion of the twossers should be working instead of studying 'subjects' that they have little prospect of employment in. Bring back technical colleges.
|
|
Whilst there will be many that will agree with your sentiment Zero, there would be plenty of solicitors or barristers ready to represent the dead person (out of public duty of course) and ensure a trial of the officer. The law as it stands probably wouldn't support a shooting with what we saw and there would have to had been a fairly significant escalation to justify lethal force.
|
|
Not sure your barrister can recover your brains from the pavement and poke them back into your head in the order they came out.
|
I didn't realise Camilla got prodded.
I'm disappointed that anything was thrown and actually hit the car, it could so easily have been some sort of incendiary or explosive device and we could be an heir short....edit...not saying a student would do that but terrorists could have slipped through.
Whatever communication breakdown caused this doesn't alter the fact that their protection was woeful.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Sat 11 Dec 10 at 19:34
|
|
Doesn't poking the wife of the heir to the throne constitute treason?
|
>> ...I'd be considering myself lucky not to have been plugged given the Met's record...
>>
>> Camilla's lucky not to have been plugged, given the Met's record. :)
Seriously though, how does this fit into the commonly held perception that armed police are trigger happy and just gagging to shoot someone?
Wouldn't these guys be spending their evenings in front of a full length mirror, bare chested, wearing a holster and imagining somebody attacking the car with a weapon.
It must be disappointing when commonly held perceptions aren't backed up in reality, but I suppose the police bashers will find a way to spin it.
BTW, manatee and iffy, not having a go at you, just taking the chance, given that you have (jokingly I think) mentioned the perception
|
No offence taken. And training should prevail over machismo, and probably does on the 99.9% of occasions we don't hear about.
Watching "Coppers" a week or so back and listening to the riot squad (not gun toting to be fair) I did wonder though. Some of them were well up for a bit of aggro and said so in so many words. I'm not surprised heads get cracked, and with humans under stress, emotions and instincts are bound to interfere with reason - on both sides.
|
|
Nice post, AC, (14:53 one!) sums up my feelings about it all very well.
|
Two open questions
Why do we need to protect Royalty at all ?
Why do they feel the need to drive around, after dark, in a car designed for state occasions - (wouldn't a discrete Jag or BMW be a better mode of transport to such events ?)
Last edited by: Pugugly on Sun 12 Dec 10 at 09:22
|
I'd say the Head of state and their other half, and the next two in line for the throne, we do need to protect... as for the rest? Well they have enough money to do it themselves...
Totally agree re the car... very inappropriate!
|
>> Why do they feel the need to drive around, after dark, in a car designed
>> for state occasions -
Its a kind of mobile Disneyland. Good for tourists.
Seriously? they need to be seen. If they are not seen and in the media we begin to question why we pay for them. In my mind they should be culled, the incumbent Queen being the last of the breed. When her wings fall off and she dies that's it.
|
|
I'm with you Zero. The old mantra that they're good for tourism and ambassadors for trade doesn't cut it with me. An anachronism we can do without.
|
People like to see the Royals.
I recall when Prince Andrew switched on the Christmas lights in Regent Street - I could see the lights, but not the prince, from my office window.
There was an enormous crowd, many of whom squealed with delight as the Royal Roller with him in the back swept up Regent Street.
|
>> Why do we need to protect Royalty at all ?
er.. because they would clearly be at risk otherwise?
>> Why do they feel the need to drive around, after dark, in a car designed
>> for state occasions - (wouldn't a discrete Jag or BMW be a better mode of
>> transport to such events ?)
Part of their duty is to be seen. I doubt it's because they want to show off.
The monarch's duty is to be the constitutional head. You only have to look at other countries' presidents to see why we are better off with them. President Blair anybody?
|
Quite apart from any opinions about the Royal family, it does make me wonder just how good we would be at protecting our Country after that performance.
Pat
|
>> Quite apart from any opinions about the Royal family, it does make me wonder just
>> how good we would be at protecting our Country after that performance.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Not very well is the answer to that one.
Our armed forces are configured to empire build, and project power, (boost politicians egos). As we now to have aircraft carriers without aircraft we will not be good at that either. Another political cock up.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 12 Dec 10 at 12:43
|
>> As we now have aircraft carriers without aircraft...
As in
"No ma'am, that's not the Red Arrows. That's the Airforce".
|
It seems that the monarch is the central but non-executive piece in our bizarre 'unwritten' constitution, which still seems to work more or less despite the presidential stresses put on it by Mrs Thatcher and her successors.
The monarchy could be - no doubt is being - subjected to financial cuts like everything else. But any attempt to abolish it would have incalculable knock-on effects.
I used to be opposed to monarchy on the ground that it symbolised gross inequality. I have come to understand that abolishing the symbol would have no effect whatsoever on the gross inequality which is always with us.
I have quoted before a prominent French intellectual with an adventurous revolutionary past who said of the British (to me, in casual conversation): 'C'est une grande nation, democratique et monarchiste.' He clearly meant it as a compliment.
|
|
I'm not advocating the removal of the Queen as head of state, seeing as my previously stated political views are in the wilderness on this - but just questioning why we need to protect them like we do. Other countries in Europe seem to get on with a bicycling monarchy so to speak.
|
>> a bicycling monarchy so to speak.
... with bicycling plainclothes Keystone Kops pedalling wildly after them?
|
>> why we need to protect them like we do.
It has just occcurred to me that we are supposed to protect everyone like that in practice. It's just that most of us don't look like big juicy targets so don't need outriders.
|
Armel Coussine said:
>> I used to be opposed to monarchy on the ground that it symbolised gross inequality.
>> I have come to understand that abolishing the symbol would have no effect whatsoever on
>> the gross inequality which is always with us.
That may well be true. But there is one big reason why I am opposed to a queen as head of state etc. And that is the message given out, namely that you can be appointed to a role on the basis of your parentage. It is a dreadful idea, appalling, and gives out the wrong message to the young. You should be appointed to a role thanks to hard work, and ability i.e. merit. Can you imagine if dentists were not trained, and the qualification was that your mum or dad was a dentist? Mind you, T. Blair Esquire was one of the worst ones when it came to appointing chums to highly paid government roles. Hohum.
That said, the royals are the biggest landowner, and an awful lot of land has been kept in a semi wild state and not put into production thanks to them.
Regarding royal protection, it could be argued that as they carry out official duties as trade embassadors and so on, that makes them potential targets, and hence we owe them protection, just as serving and ex-prime ministers have dedicated protection officers.
|
>> there is one big reason why I am opposed
>> to a queen as head of state etc. And that is the message given out,
>> namely that you can be appointed to a role on the basis of your parentage.
>> It is a dreadful idea, appalling,
Not sure about that. What constitutes merit in this context? The Queen performs her duties on the whole without perceptible partiality and as as a matter of duty. She has not climbed the greasy pole, and owes no political favours. She is 84 and still working 30 hours a week. Philip, approaching 90, is planning to cut down on his 350 or so engagements a year.
As AC has noted, there's much greater unfairness elsewhere and much wealth and position is disposed on the basis of being in the 'club' of persons of influence who scratch each others' backs.
>> Can you imagine if dentists were not trained, and the qualification was that your mum
>> or dad was a dentist?
Well, no - but that's a straw man. Prince Charles has been in training for about 60 years, and his successor is already on the foundation course.
|
>> >> Can you imagine if dentists were not trained, and the qualification was that your
>> mum
>> >> or dad was a dentist?
>>
>> Well, no - but that's a straw man. Prince Charles has been in training for
>> about 60 years, and his successor is already on the foundation course.
It certainly is not a straw man. The truth is that Charlie will not fail the course as there is no no course and no exam. Just look at past kings and queens, and you'll see the perils of our anachonistic system. Quite why we want to be ruled by a bunch of slightly dim in bred Germans is beyond me.
|
>> Quite why we want to be ruled by a bunch of slightly dim in bred Germans is beyond me.
Another straw man - we aren't ruled by them, dim, inbred, German or otherwise.
I didn't expect you to agree ;-)
|
Manatee has pipped me.
The monarch reigns, but hasn't ruled this country for centuries.
|
>> >> Quite why we want to be ruled by a bunch of slightly dim in
>> bred Germans is beyond me.
>>
>> Another straw man
What a strange comment.
>>- we aren't ruled by them, dim, inbred, German or otherwise.
You know what I meant. They may well have little real constitutional power, but they do have influence and power albeit indirect, and represent the less appealing antidiluvian side of Britain. Oh, and as an MP, and a Boy Scout, and presumably many other things you have to swear loyalty to the crown, rather than the people/country.
>> I didn't expect you to agree ;-)
I was worried I would disappoint you. I can now sleep more soundly.
|
>>>> Another straw man
>>What a strange comment.
Are you just being disingenuous? As I'm sure you know, a straw man is a rhetorical device that misrepresents another's position. E.g., your misrepresenting my position by suggesting I am in favour of being ruled by a bunch of inbred German dimwits. I'm not, and I'm not.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 12 Dec 10 at 19:25
|
The Royal Family are a fantastic asset to this country. Their costs are met either fully or partly by the tourism they generate (maybe we even make a profit), but best of all, they are powerless.
Let's replace them with an elected president?
We'd end up with the type of egomanical has been who becomes Mayor of London (sorry Boris, I like you) with a huge department, salary and budget to match and the urge to stick his or her nose into everything, making more laws we don't want or need.
Better the devil we know anyday.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sun 12 Dec 10 at 19:32
|
>> Well, no - but that's a straw man. Prince Charles has been in training for
>> about 60 years,
Yes but when is he ever going to pass? He is a complete fruitcake.
>> and his successor is already on the foundation course.
*IF* the monarchy has to survive, then the young lad has to be next on the ladder, his father is not fit for purpose.
|
I think Charlie will do. He might be a fruitcake, but he's our fruitcake. Responsibility transforms people.
To be fair, his dad's a bit eccentric and all the better for that. If I want pointless platitudes I'll send for a politician.
|
>> Charlie will do.
I have to agree. Perfectly respectable person. There have been much worse in living and almost living memory.
The succession isn't our business. The government is. That's why we have the vote.
Evil media owners spout this sort of rubbish because they are offshore, foreign and hostile to this country. All they want is a bit of celebrity gossip and phoney politics to sell their comics.
Sad to see a sensible fellow like Zeddo buying that crap.
|
>> >> Charlie will do.
>>
>> I have to agree. Perfectly respectable person. There have been much worse in living and
>> almost living memory.
>
I doubt it, The guy is a complete and utter plonker, and has no grasp of what solar system he is on, let alone planet. I went to poundbury - his "village" You only needed mini mokes and huge blown up durex blowing around to get the idea.
I notice his "Dutchy Originals" business venture had to be bought out and rescued by Waitrose, thereby saving half the jobs for his "serfs"
Hes a tit.
|
...Charles is a tit...
The evidence before me suggests otherwise.
I spoke to quite a few people who met Charles following a visit to their work premises.
All said, in so many words, they had a preconceived notion of a buffoon, but instead found a decent bloke, who was obviously no fool and knew what was going on in the world.
I think he cracked one or two jokes, which as always appealed to some more than others, but no one who came across Charles that day thought him a 'tit'.
Last edited by: Iffy on Mon 13 Dec 10 at 04:12
|
>> The succession isn't our business. The government is. That's why we have the vote.
Of course its our business we have to pay for them, and they expect us to cow tow and doff our caps to them
>> Sad to see a sensible fellow like Zeddo buying that crap.
I don't need anyone to sell me anything. I recognise a tit when i see one. Specially an inbred tit.
|
Your replies are amusingly offensive Z but lacking in substance. Charlie's clearly not your type, but he'll be miles better than any money grubbing megalomaniac or superannuated politician, and far more capable of creating goodwill abroad.
Robin Regal spelled it out. The monarchy isn't important for the power it wields, but for the power it denies to the venal Presidents we would certainly have.
Didn't somebody once say that US presidents get elected through ruthless ambition, the biggest election spend, the most unrealistic promises and looking good on TV?
We don't know when we are well off. Even the French admire the royal family - hardly surprising given what they have to put up with.
|
Very Well, if the alternative is a President Nicolas Paul Stephane Sarkozy de Nagy-Bocsa then royalty it must be,
However lets skip the inbred buffon in waiting then, and go for his firstborn, at least he has youth and some mongrel in him.
|
|
I think that's the first time I have been rated offensive. Who did I offend - the Americans or the French? Or does somebody just disagree? If so I'll have to try harder at offending ;-)
|
If so I'll have
>> to try harder at offending ;-)
I run an evening class if you are interested. AC said he will be guest speaker one week.
|
|
Sign me up. I'd be a fool to turn down a master class.
|
>> AC said he will be guest speaker one week.
Looking forward to it Zeddo. I thought on the theme of "The Fine Italian Hand: 'Ndrangheta techniques in the world of communications", if that sounds OK?
|
tinyurl.com/2d8ft2m
At least half of these morons don't look like they will have been within 5 miles of an educational establishment (except to break into the IT lab).
To me, it adds weight to the fact that a lot of the trouble was from football hooligans types looking for trouble, rather than students.
The guy in the bottom right is, however, probably more likely to be an art student than Chelsea headhunter.
|
>> miles of an educational establishment (except to break into the IT lab).
Two of them look like they escaped from the cages in the Huntingdon Life Sciences lab.
|
It wasn't me manatee, I'd have told you straight if it was:)
I'll keep quiet about my views on Charles....being in a male dominated place is probably not the best place to air them.
But broadly speaking I agree with Z.
Pat
|
...But broadly speaking I agree with Z...
If either of you met him, you might think differently - many people do.
|
Who has got you out of bed this morning?:)
Pat
|
|
I came across Prince Charles a couple of times when he was the commanding officer of HMS Bronington, his ship handling may have caused a few grey hairs among senior officers on occasions, but he was no fool. As a youngster I was ordered to get a tractor, (easily availiable, used for towing torpedoes around), and drag an illegally parked Range Rover that was blocking access on a jetty alongside HMS Bronington out of the way. I had seen who had abandoned it, and took long enough to find a tractor to ensure that a "minder" had shifted it.
|
I know of two people who have met Charles (one knew the royal family well!). He visited some Army housing once and got shown around. Someone I know got to be chosen for him to meet. He was a lovely person and they all had preconceptions which turned out to be wrong. He was chatting away for ages and when someone knocked on the door he said something like: "that will be my bodyguards... shall we we see upstairs", i.e. he was not to be rushed.
I'd forgotten about this story.
|
Neither does Charles drew anything from the Civil List.
He survives on income from the Duchy of Cornwall, on which some tax is paid.
"So he should!" some might say, and they would probably be right, but it wasn't always the case.
One of our resident Republicans has already knocked the Duchy Originals food arm as having to be bailed out by Waitrose.
If anyone else had started a business which had been taken over by a major supermarket, they would have been hailed as Businessman of the Year.
Charles was also championing what we now call 'green issues' long before they became fashionable.
I have mixed views about the green lobby, but you can't say Charles was anything other than ahead of the game on that one.
Don't knock what you don't understand, although reading this thread, I see some of you already have.
|
You are the one who doesn't understand. Bailed out is not "Taken over"
it means rescued, because of financial failure, eating up his revenue in a huge way from the rents he charges his tenants.
He doesn't need the civil list because the country gave him a huge chunk of our island!
|
>>He doesn't need the civil list because the country gave him a huge chunk of our island!
Zero obviously does not understand the phrase "inherited wealth"...
|
...Zero obviously does not understand the phrase "inherited wealth"...
Or if he does, he doesn't approve of it.
Unless it applies to his family, of course.
|
I am sure HRH the Prince of Wales doesn't know when his bins are collected either.
Tits of a feather stick together and all that, what!
|
...Tits of a feather stick together and all that, what!...
Well Zero, if it wasn't for the likes of us, you little people would have no one to look up to.
|
>> ...Tits of a feather stick together and all that, what!...
>>
>> Well Zero, if it wasn't for the likes of us, you little people would have
>> no one to look up to.
< flutters eyelashes in simpering mock adulation >
Yes My lord
< sticks finger down throat in vomiting gesture >
|
...Yes My lord...
Some people would take being compared to Prince Charles as an insult, but I take it as a compliment.
I'm finding these days I walk with my hands clasped behind my back and lean forward a little while doing so.
Better look into the family tree, I could be a long-lost member of the ruling class.
|
Yup those flappy ears of yours are the first signs of a genetic deficiency.
Do you fiddle with your cufflinks a lot?
|
...Do you fiddle with your cufflinks a lot?...
Don't have any on the staff, although there's a Filipino maid who's a bit of alright.
|
>> >>He doesn't need the civil list because the country gave him a huge chunk of
>> our island!
>>
>>
>>
>> Zero obviously does not understand the phrase "inherited wealth"...
I didnt say when we gave him a huge chunk of the island, or even if it was taken by force.
|
|
Blind subservience and adoration to any head of state is a questionable trait. It's easy to forget that Royals come from a completely ruthless line however touchy feely the current mob project themselves as. They only got to where they are through subjugation and domination. I just find the whole thing archaic.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 13 Dec 10 at 09:46
|
...They only got to where they are through subjugation and domination...
Maybe, but as things stand now the monarchy only exists thanks to the will of the people.
I believe the Queen understands this, which is one of the reasons why concessions have been made.
|
She does yes.
Not sure that Charles Philip Arthur George, The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, KG KT GCB OM AK QSO CD SOM GCL PC AdC(P) FRS does however.
|
Maybe, but as things stand now the monarchy only exists thanks to the will of the people.
How do you work that out iffy ? I never got a chance to vote on a monarchy or was I out of the
country ?
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 13 Dec 10 at 09:56
|
If the will was really there, we could just get rid of them.
We dont actually have a written constitution, so we could just cast them aside. Any party could just claim that as a manifesto policy, and if they got voted in, the royals are offski.
The Aussies are a canny lot, When the Queen dies they will vote for being a republic, but it would be a less easy thing to get through if Charles's first born was head of state.
|
...Not sure that Charles Philip Arthur George, The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, KG KT GCB OM AK QSO CD SOM GCL PC AdC(P) FRS does however...
I think that may be right.
I've no idea if he agreed with being taken off the civil list pay roll, may well not have done.
Few people aboard the gravy train are keen to get off.
...How do you work that out iffy ? I never got a chance to vote on a monarchy or was I out of the
country ?....
If there was a huge majority of the country in favour of abandoning the monarchy, it would happen.
It might take many years, but after a few elections we would have a parliament of republicans who would ultimately get their way.
Then there's the possibility of civil disobedience - chucking some bricks at a few windows (and coppers) in Trafalgar Square is all it took to get rid of the poll tax.
Institutions of state can be quite fragile - the House of Lords has been radically reformed and at one time looked close to being abolished.
|
|
I view them as something not relevant to me, certainly you wouldn't see me bow to them in public, or accept an invite to one of their functions or a gong come to that. If the country chooses to keep them that's a matter for them, I abhor their blood soaked history.
|
|
When I was at university, students were easily identifiable by the items of uniform they wore ~ ties, scarves, etc. I don't remember that it was compulsory. We could get things specific to the university or specific to the particular faculty we were in. We were proud to wear the uniforms. Nowadays because university students don't wear uniforms they can take part in demonstrations anonymously.
|
Surely "their bloodsoaked history" is also the same as ours, ceratinly since the existing lot came to power?
I don't see the alternatives as any better... Hitler, Stalin, etc.... They serve a purpose and I suspect are cheaper and less dangerous than a President or Dictator (same thing in some cases?!)...
Last edited by: hobby on Mon 13 Dec 10 at 14:04
|
|
It's the history that troubles me, as recent as Queen VIctoria's reign - when we imposed Pax Britannica across the world. We're still mopping up the consequences.
|
We also did that imposition in the name of Christianity... Is God to blame as well?
Long gone history, we've learnt the lessons from that (though some other countries haven't) and the present incumbents can hardly be held responsible for their ancestors' actions, just as we can't. Whats past is past, time to move on... and I feel the lot at the top of the Royal tree do a good job... maybe not the rest, though!
|
As it is about 150 years since any Monarch ran the UK's foreign policy, - and certainly more like 200 years plus since any monarch declared war off his/her own bat...
(we are a constitutional monarchy and have been since the early 18th century)##
blaming the monarchy for our past wars seems to me to indicate the British history teaching is rubbish...
## All wars need approval of the HOC - effectively - to raise money.. Even Tony Blair (who looks as if Chilcott is going to destroy what repuation he has left over his Iraq lies).. know that.
|
I don't blame the Monarchy for any 20th or 21st Century bloodshed obviously. I am not a Royalist - simple, not alleging anything against the current ones.
I just wan to be a citizen of my own country and not anyone's subject.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 13 Dec 10 at 15:55
|
|
Charlie thinks you are a subject, and thinks you are best placed tilling the soil.
|
He may of course be correct :-)
(The Duchy needs gardeners)
Last edited by: madf on Mon 13 Dec 10 at 16:38
|
|
He is just like your boss at work, just on a bigger scale.
|
Tuition fee protests - Statistical Outlier
