Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

I never said people shouldn't visit these places merely that the royal family is not a factor in the decision to see theses places .

The Palace Of Versailles, with the French royal family no longer present = 10 million visitors per year.
Buckingham Palace, with Liz & Phil still "in office" = 30 million visitors per year.
They might be archaic, outdated, relics of a bygone age - or whatever, but the royal family has survived all sorts of scandals, they've endured. They haven't hung around through that because people didn't want them, but because they did, and because they continue to do so.

With all due respect, D41, they have endured because they are in control. let's not believe that these people are super humans, they are just like you and me except.....at some point back in time their family had the power, money and control to resist them being ousted from power.

I am not especially anti-Royalist but there is no doubt that their existence stops the spread of wealth and power through the United Kingdom. they are a relic from the past with probably a very limited lifespan. Inherited privilege needs to be eradicted for Britain to move forward.

Had Cromwell succeeded back in the day, i suspect England would be a much better place to live than it is now. The 'divine right of kings' is utter bullshit.

Vive Le Revolution!

What??
Cromwell was the poster-boy for "The divine right of kings" long before the the term itself was ever coined.
Which other non-royal has ever encouraged people to address them as "His Highness"??
He was fervently religious & a regicidal dictator - again, long before the term 'dictator' became widely known.

He's like an English version of Mussolini.

The best thing this Country could do is abolish public schools.

Its the worst kind of privilege out there and just feeds the same to future generations.

duke63 wrote:The best thing this Country could do is abolish public schools.

Its the worst kind of privilege out there and just feeds the same to future generations.

Surely you mean private schools?

He does. Private schools in England are called public schools....they're open (in theory) to the smart kids who may be from any background (hence, "public"). It's based on academic ability rather than wealth, but the rich kids aren't excluded. Just like Hogwarts!!

The actual schools for the public are run by local school districts...usually at a county level, IIRC.

And then there's the Catholic schools, which are a bit more spread out than local schools. And not for those dreadful Protestant riff-raff.

D41 wrote:He does. Private schools in England are called public schools....they're open (in theory) to the smart kids who may be from any background (hence, "public"). It's based on academic ability rather than wealth, but the rich kids aren't excluded. Just like Hogwarts!!

The actual schools for the public are run by local school districts...usually at a county level, IIRC.

And then there's the Catholic schools, which are a bit more spread out than local schools. And not for those dreadful Protestant riff-raff.

Cheers D, that cleared that up except for the Hogwarts reference.... never seen or read any Harry Potter.

Not really, D41.

Public/private schools first and foremost consideration is...can you afford the fees to send your child here.

Then they will decide whether they let you in.

They're also registered charities so they don't pay any TAX

duke63 wrote:Not really, D41.

Public/private schools first and foremost consideration is...can you afford the fees to send your child here.

Then they will decide whether they let you in.

So in essence, having wealth buys you not only a better life for yourself, but also for your family??
That's free market economics, nothing wrong with that, Shirley??

D41 wrote:

duke63 wrote:Not really, D41.

Public/private schools first and foremost consideration is...can you afford the fees to send your child here.

Then they will decide whether they let you in.

So in essence, having wealth buys you not only a better life for yourself, but also for your family??
That's free market economics, nothing wrong with that, Shirley??

Every child should have the benefit of that education. It would benefit the Nation big time, what it wouldn't benefit is those in power as they would have to get off their arses and do some work.

Every child??

That's great....but who's going to pay for it??

D41 wrote:Every child??

That's great....but who's going to pay for it??

I have a suggestion.
Some may consider it "a little" radicle, however how about this.
We adopt China's One child policy. That way there will be enough school places, enough capacity in the NHS, enough space on the roads (eventually)
We should cull all but the first born in every family, that will make the effect more immediate (and give a big boost to the Death Care Industry).
I reckon that, adopted worldwide, this could stop the Global Ruination within 10 years ( almost soon enough to be of benefit to me ).

China no longer has a one child policy.

But I like your idea about culling. As long as they make it retroactive.

D41 wrote:....But I like your idea about culling. As long as they make it retrospective.

StMarks wrote:.....We should cull all but the first born in every family....

Well....that just indicates that you don't have children yourself.

Aside from the fact that I may not have been deadly serious........

D41 wrote:Well....that just indicates that you don't have children yourself.

Not really. - It could equally indicate that that I only have one.?
Or that one or less of my offspring are within my family unit, and any others are within one child family units.??
Or that I consider the future of the planet's ecology more important than individuals.???
Etc etc....

or that you dislike 2 of your 3 kids .....