Passing of an era, time for a republic?

[Brumish]

Whilst we're at it; Can any of the God squad explain why Charles has the right to rule?

Doubt there's anyone else better qualified. He's had 50 years of shadowing. Name one other who has had such intense development?  RoyalLivesMatter

[Matrix]

Doubt there's anyone else better qualified. He's had 50 years of shadowing. Name one other who has had such intense development?  RoyalLivesMatter

That's a no then. Cheers. 

Maybe he could front a new Jim'll fix it show?

Must also be qualified.

[Marmalade]

Not really. The Succession is enshrined in law. End of!!
External Link/Members Only

[LLPunting]

That's a no then. Cheers. 

Maybe he could front a new Jim'll fix it show?

Must also be qualified.

He's been doing his own form of fixing it for decades by way of Prince's Trust and other outreach work.  What have you done for the wider community and disadvantaged?

If you're alluding to other nefarious behaviour by Jimmy then where's your proof such that you can say "must"?

[Matrix]

That's what I thought. No-one can say it.

Am I in the running as well? 

[tp69]

Whilst we're at it; Can any of the God squad explain why Charles has the right to rule?

560 Official engagements in a single year, and around 500 every other year. Who do you suggest is more qualified?

External Link/Members Only.

That and the fact he's the heir to the throne and the rightful King.

[Matrix]

560 Official engagements in a single year, and around 500 every other year. Who do you suggest is more qualified?

External Link/Members Only.

That and the fact he's the heir to the throne and the rightful King.

Why is there "a rightful King"? 

I'll raise you that his Son is better "qualified" than he is. Plus, he's 73. Frankly past it. 

For the money he's on, I think we can do better.

We should put the position up for grabs, down the local dole office and see what sort of competition we have.

Not sure how many members of the public would make it past round 1, being associated with Js and also Mountbatten. Not to mention one or two others...

Perhaps bring Simon Cowell in to do a talent show and we can also export it to the rest of the world. 

[tp69]

Why is there "a rightful King"? 

I'll raise you that his Son is better qualified than he is. Plus, he's 73. Frankly past it. 

Based on what? Your opinion? That's not how the monarchy works. That's all there is to it.

And one could argue William would make a better king in a decade once his children are older.

[Matrix]

Based on what? Your opinion? That's not how the monarchy works. That's all there is to it.

And one could argue William would make a better king in a decade once his children are older.

Based on the fact the Old man is 73.

Do you believe in the divine right to rule? 

[willie loman]

the divine right of kings, was one of the reasons for the civil war. which lead to the execution of charles 1st, given that his son charles 2 was restored, its possible that the divine right was then accepted by the majority, however james 2nd was kicked out by the english , so its fair to say that the english accept the divine right when it suits them, they are a practical race, not overtly concerned with legal technicalities.

[Marmalade]

Charles' speech to parliament, though not very exciting, encapsulated it quite wello when he spoke of parliamet that upholds our democratic system. by 'our' as king, he also means 'my'. It would lose the point if Charles – or someone else – was also 'elected'.

The divine right of kings was founded in the idea of proper execution of duty. Some do it better than others (Ancient Egypt is possibly the best to study for examples). It's akin to the idea of 'philosopher kings'. The problem was how to get rid of someone who didn't live up to it. Hence the thing in many other primitive societies (including apparently, Scotland) was to make them the sun's vice-regent for a year then 'send them back to their divine source' as per the 1973 movie The Wicker Man (based very very loosely on ideas from JG Frazer). Whether they were good or bad, they had a year to try and live up to the symbol that everyone aspired to.

Eventually we have replaced all that with succession. The whole point is that the King or Queen is above politics. A continuum and figurehead beyond successive political swings and ruptures. They can't be above politics if subjected to the popular vote.

I don't mean this as some sort of apologia for British Royalty. But the example of the late Queen suggests it's not quite as bad as some people have wanted to make out. We should all be able to see from recent examples in Britain, America, Egypt, Brazil, etc that democracy has many deep flaws. It can be manipulated, not always to the benefit of the people. It's better than alternatives. But before dismantling the monarchy or extending the 'democratic process' in favour of an elected person at the top, it's well to look at the potential benefits and shortcomings.

[sparkus]

Nothing to do with god, as the queen's eldest he was the heir to the throne so is now king.

I think he's more referring to the notion that the Crown is appointed by God, as head of the Church of England.  Hence the Coronation ritual.

[sparkus]

Probably the best thread for it on here, but has anyone else seen the video of Prince Andrew stroking his daughter's behind while 'comforting' her?

[lillythesavage]

Probably the best thread for it on here, but has anyone else seen the video of Prince Andrew stroking his daughter's behind while 'comforting' her?

I was told he did just that to Kate, I think, while standing, then kneeling next to her to look at flowers 

[sparkus]

I was told he did just that to Kate, I think, while standing, then kneeling next to her to look at flowers 

Plenty of vids on social media, only the Yanks reporting the ewwww reactions:

External Link/Members Only

[lillythesavage]

Plenty of vids on social media, only the Yanks reporting the ewwww reactions:

External Link/Members Only

Sick cunt 

[Matrix]

Charles' speech to parliament, though not very exciting, encapsulated it quite wello when he spoke of parliamet that upholds our democratic system. by 'our' as king, he also means 'my'. It would lose the point if Charles – or someone else – was also 'elected'.

The divine right of kings was founded in the idea of proper execution of duty. Some do it better than others (Ancient Egypt is possibly the best to study for examples). It's akin to the idea of 'philosopher kings'. The problem was how to get rid of someone who didn't live up to it. Hence the thing in many other primitive societies (including apparently, Scotland) was to make them the sun's vice-regent for a year then 'send them back to their divine source' as per the 1973 movie The Wicker Man (based very very loosely on ideas from JG Frazer). Whether they were good or bad, they had a year to try and live up to the symbol that everyone aspired to.

Eventually we have replaced all that with succession. The whole point is that the King or Queen is above politics. A continuum and figurehead beyond successive political swings and ruptures. They can't be above politics if subjected to the popular vote.

I don't mean this as some sort of apologia for British Royalty. But the example of the late Queen suggests it's not quite as bad as some people have wanted to make out. We should all be able to see from recent examples in Britain, America, Egypt, Brazil, etc that democracy has many deep flaws. It can be manipulated, not always to the benefit of the people. It's better than alternatives. But before dismantling the monarchy or extending the 'democratic process' in favour of an elected person at the top, it's well to look at the potential benefits and shortcomings.

A well written piece.

When shall we take a look at all the benefits of electing a leader and being a Republic?

Some not doing a good job, shouldn't mean we shouldn't try.

Take a look at this thread. Some folk find it offensive to even discuss the subject. Instead of having a debate, they go straight to ad hom-enin.

[Marmalade]

A well written piece.

When shall we take a look at all the benefits of electing a leader and being a Republic?

Some not doing a good job, shouldn't mean we shouldn't try.

Take a look at this thread. Some folk find it offensive to even discuss the subject. Instead of having a debate, they go straight to ad hom-enin.

It’s an interesting subject but before such a massive change were contemplated you would need at least a decently supported hypothesis to show how it would be an ‘improvement’, and that needs to be more than a segment of public opinion.

I don’t know that people find it offensive to discuss, just a bit offensive right now. As with protests, if there is an issue that’s been triggered, wait until a decent interval has passed. The ceremonials and public outflowing of feeling is legitimised and going ahead, irrespective.

Don’t be one that rains on the parade. As per the thread title, is it the time — eg this month — and the answer is (IMO) no, it is not.

And regarding an era, a majority will say, the Queen is dead, long live the King! The era of the Crown is not dead. And even if you had an anti-royalist referendum now, the answer would be no.

I can’t see how anyone fails to see that.

[Matrix]

It’s an interesting subject but before such a massive change were contemplated you would need at least a decently supported hypothesis to show how it would be an ‘improvement’, and that needs to be more than a segment of public opinion.

I don’t know that people find it offensive to discuss, just a bit offensive right now. As with protests, if there is an issue that’s been triggered, wait until a decent interval has passed. The ceremonials and public outflowing of feeling is legitimised and going ahead, irrespective.

Don’t be one that rains on the parade. As per the thread title, is it the time — eg this month — and the answer is (IMO) no, it is not.

And regarding an era, a majority will say, the Queen is dead, long live the King! The era of the Crown is not dead. And even if you had an anti-royalist referendum now, the answer would be no.

I can’t see how anyone fails to see that.

Well then, why don't we have such a referendum?

I think you'd find it's not as lop sided as you think.

Now is definitely the right time to discuss a Republic.

I wonder what percentage think Charles will lace his mother's boots...

The old dear had a wonderfully blessed and long life. Its not disrespectful to discuss evolving as a people and a country.

It's simply an excuse to stifle debate and has several parallels with religion, which I won't discuss.

[Marmalade]

Now is definitely the right time to discuss a Republic.

Then we shall agree to differ. 

Good luck.

[Matrix]

Then we shall agree to differ. 

Good luck.

Thats fair enough. As long as we're allowed to have the discussion.

Saying its disrespectful, frankly isn't a reason. It's similar to saying somethings offensive. Completely subjective. Also likely to be brought out whenever the Republican question comes up.

When would be the right time?

If I was sore  I'd report everyone for saying "God save the King" as it violates forum rules.   

Unlike our West Atlantic cousins, we can still agree to disagree.

[LLPunting]

Thats fair enough. As long as we're allowed to have the discussion.

Saying its disrespectful, frankly isn't a reason. It's similar to saying somethings offensive. Completely subjective. Also likely to be brought out whenever the Republican question comes up.

When would be the right time?

If I was sore  I'd report everyone for saying "God save the King" as it violates forum rules.   

Unlike our West Atlantic cousins, we can still agree to disagree.

Thing is you aren't having a discussion you're just trolling the moment by throwing unfounded insults, ageist prejudice and unsubstantiated claims of unworthiness.  You make no argument for what you think the role of a national figurehead should be, their duties, competencies or value.  You show no respect for the passing of someone and the grieving others are entitled to you just voice your hate.  Where're your many threads clamouring for the dispossession of all the other exploitative people doing far worse damage to ours and World society?  So many far richer than the Monarchy.

[tp69]

When would be the right time?

I'd imagine when one of the most popular monarchs in history hasn't just died. She hasn't even been buried. Allow people time to digest what has happened before suggesting her family be eradicated might be a better strategy. Statistically, you'll lose as polls have shown the majority of the UK are still in favour of the monarchy. This will probably change over time as the younger generation are less in favour.

Agree with LL above re trolling. Pointless.

[JontyR]

Although I find the idea of a hereditary monarchy a complete anachronism I would vote for the retention of the monarchy in its present form if there were a referendum. I may feel different if I was Dutch or Spanish but our monarchy does represent us effectively overseas and does much to our overall "branding" as a nation. I know others will disagree as to the level of benefit of this brings, but I think the way the recent news has been covered globally shows this.

If you want proof, the reason that heads of state are turning up in such numbers will be not to be seen here...but to be seen in there own countries...being present at such a global event. 

I can't imagine them turning up for anyone outside of the present monarchy, even if we elected David Attenborough or Judi Dench to be head of state.

There is a change I would make though. I remember some correspondent detailing when there was talk of abdication that the Queen would never consider it because of the vow she made to God at her Coronation. And you certainly can't question the commitment she showed.

But I do feel that if Charles thought that abdication may be something in the future he'd want to consider - jeez he's going to be 80 in 8 years time - then he should be able take vows at his Coronation that would allow him to.

The Queen was vital mentally to the last, and how lucky we all have been for this. We shouldn't however take it for granted that this would be the case going forward.

There is a time for a debate on this though, however I find that those shouting abuse at the ceremonies at the moment are little better than the Westboro Baptist Church when they picket funerals of dead soldiers.

[JontyR]

When would be the right time?

When we have stopped talking about the funeral and started talking about the Coronation instead.

[Matrix]

Thing is you aren't having a discussion you're just trolling the moment by throwing unfounded insults, ageist prejudice and unsubstantiated claims of unworthiness.  You make no argument for what you think the role of a national figurehead should be, their duties, competencies or value.  You show no respect for the passing of someone and the grieving others are entitled to you just voice your hate.  Where're your many threads clamouring for the dispossession of all the other exploitative people doing far worse damage to ours and World society?  So many far richer than the Monarchy.

I always thought you were quite eloquent.

I didn't realise that having an elected head of state was so controversial.

As for ageist, when are you due to retire? 

I have made an argument. Perhaps you missed it. It doesn't have to be on your terms.

Your criteria appears to be number of functions attended.

If you truly think I'm trolling, report me or come up with something  to debate with, rather than  your pseudo outrage.

Anyone would think this thread is directly addressed to the "Royal" family.

It's not up to you to define or enforce the grounds of discussion.

If this topic is forbidden, by forum rules, then so be it.

Edit; The highlighted part of your post says it all.

Just a thought, if I was to follow your "guidance" I wouldn't be trying to change the world on a punting forum. Simply having a discussion, or at least trying to.

You're doing almost exactly what you've accused me of.

I'll leave you to speculate on what or whom I hate.

[Matrix]

When we have stopped talking about the funeral and started talking about the Coronation instead.

That's a NEVER then! 

[Matrix]

One wonders if British intelligence ever thought to mention this to the heir to the throne.

External Link/Members Only External Link/Members Only

He was "innocent" but I'd suggest that being a close friend of somebody picked up twice for this, doesn't make the best "optics" for the future head of state.

A quick word in his ear could've helped.

Interesting that old Jim and Peter became dear friends.

Seems strange that intelligence wouldn't be aware of what close relations to the royals got up to, in their spare time.

I don't know about anyone else, but even as a young child, I found him very suspect. Jim, that is.

I think the King's judgement might not be up to much.

[Matrix]

Just a suggestion.

If the idea of a republic or even it's discussion is so upsetting to some, why read the thread? 

You can always return when the time IS right.

[daviemac]

One wonders if British intelligence ever thought to mention this to the heir to the throne.

External Link/Members Only External Link/Members Only

He was "innocent" but I'd suggest that being a close friend of somebody picked up twice for this, doesn't make the best "optics" for the future head of state.

A quick word in his ear could've helped.

Interesting that old Jim and Peter became dear friends.

Seems strange that intelligence wouldn't be aware of what close relations to the royals got up to, in their spare time.

I don't know about anyone else, but even as a young child, I found him very suspect. Jim, that is.

I think the King's judgement might not be up to much.

You claim to want to debate the issue but from what I can see you only want to use this thread as your personal soap box and drag any old crap up to cause controversy. What has a 10 year old article about Jimmy Savile got to do with this thread.   

You appear to have a distinct lack of understanding of how the monarchy works, you mention god but that has nothing to do with it, Charles is next in line to the throne so he became king upon his mother's death. Along with being king he also inherited something like 14 other titles, plus he automatically became head of the church of England.   Without getting into a religious debate the fact is the church of England is a very small fraction of Christianity, other sections have their own leaders.

Personally my feelings toward the monarchy are ones of total indifference, however I have the utmost respect for the position of head of state and that would be the same if we had an elected head in a republic. I also have great admiration for the late queen for the way she conducted herself throughout her reign.

Whether or not we should have a republic I don't know, though I don't think discussing it and raking up any gossip you can to justify your prejudices is right at the present time.

Caveat, the above are my own personal opinions.

[spiralnotebook]

I might be confused (I often am) but  wasn’t the C of E invented by Henry VIII as a way to divorce one of his wives and remove papal power? I hold my hand up if wrong 

[Brumish]

I might be confused (I often am) but  wasn’t the C of E invented by Henry VIII as a way to divorce one of his wives and remove papal power? I hold my hand up if wrong 

Aye...to get rid of Catherine of Aragon IIRC...it's just the same as all the other superstitions 

[tp69]

Just a suggestion.

If the idea of a republic or even it's discussion is so upsetting to some, why read the thread? 

You can always return when the time IS right.

I doubt anyone is upset by the discussion, whether or not we think it's respectful. Your agenda seems to be based on being antagonistic and argumentative. If you want a discussion, make a considered case for whatever it is you'd prefer.

[daviemac]

I might be confused (I often am) but  wasn’t the C of E invented by Henry VIII as a way to divorce one of his wives and remove papal power? I hold my hand up if wrong 

I believe so, that's how the reigning monarch is the head of it. Charles became head of the C of E because he became king, he didn't become king because of the C of E.  All the royals have different titles now as they've moved up the pecking order.

[Marmalade]

I'd imagine when one of the most popular monarchs in history hasn't just died. She hasn't even been buried. Allow people time to digest what has happened before suggesting her family be eradicated might be a better strategy. Statistically, you'll lose as polls have shown the majority of the UK are still in favour of the monarchy. This will probably change over time as the younger generation are less in favour.

Agree with LL above re trolling. Pointless.

Pretty much. +1

If the point needs made stronger Matrix…
Imagine you are at the funeral of your nearest and dearest. They are about to lower the coffin into the ground. Picture that.

Now imagine some eco- protestors come along with banners and a megaphone saying it’s in ecological, funeral burials are a desecration etc etc etc. they try to drown out the proceedings. Maybe they started a blog snd Twitter account attacking what you’re doing.

Now in Scotland your right to have them removed would, I suspect be respected. In London maybe not.

If you expect respect at such times you also owe it to others.

[chrishornx]

I'd imagine when one of the most popular monarchs in history hasn't just died. She hasn't even been buried. Allow people time to digest what has happened before suggesting her family be eradicated might be a better strategy. Statistically, you'll lose as polls have shown the majority of the UK are still in favour of the monarchy. This will probably change over time as the younger generation are less in favour.

Agree with LL above re trolling. Pointless.

+1

[Private Parts]

Matrix reminds me of Canute

[spiralnotebook]

Canute was actually a very successful Anglo/Danish king. The bit about the ordering the sea back sea was attributed to him showing even as king, how little power he actually had.

 

[Matrix]

You claim to want to debate the issue but from what I can see you only want to use this thread as your personal soap box and drag any old crap up to cause controversy. What has a 10 year old article about Jimmy Savile got to do with this thread.   

You appear to have a distinct lack of understanding of how the monarchy works, you mention god but that has nothing to do with it, Charles is next in line to the throne so he became king upon his mother's death. Along with being king he also inherited something like 14 other titles, plus he automatically became head of the church of England.   Without getting into a religious debate the fact is the church of England is a very small fraction of Christianity, other sections have their own leaders.

Personally my feelings toward the monarchy are ones of total indifference, however I have the utmost respect for the position of head of state and that would be the same if we had an elected head in a republic. I also have great admiration for the late queen for the way she conducted herself throughout her reign.

Whether or not we should have a republic I don't know, though I don't think discussing it and raking up any gossip you can to justify your prejudices is right at the present time.

Caveat, the above are my own personal opinions.

I agree with this part, though I doubt many believe me.

I've made it clear I think the Kings judgement is shoddy at best, and if I wanted to, I could drag up a lot more than that.

Perhaps you should lock the thread until you think the time is right to reopen it.

[Matrix]

Matrix reminds me of Canute

A relative of mine. 

[Matrix]

Pretty much. +1

If the point needs made stronger Matrix…
Imagine you are at the funeral of your nearest and dearest. They are about to lower the coffin into the ground. Picture that.

Now imagine some eco- protestors come along with banners and a megaphone saying it’s in ecological, funeral burials are a desecration etc etc etc. they try to drown out the proceedings. Maybe they started a blog snd Twitter account attacking what you’re doing.

Now in Scotland your right to have them removed would, I suspect be respected. In London maybe not.

If you expect respect at such times you also owe it to others.

I'm not on social media and discussing this topic, on a punting forum, is in no way similar to pissing on someone's grave.

[daviemac]

I've made it clear I think the Kings judgement is shoddy at best, and if I wanted to, I could drag up a lot more than that.

Tells me what type of 'person' you are as all you want to do is rake up any old crap you can find about someone especially at a time like this.

Disrespectful hasn't got a look in, using the current situation to spout your own pathetic prejudices.

If I wasn't a mod I would tell you what I really think of you and this is coming from someone who is in no way shape or form a royalist, just someone who can empathise with those who are deeply affected by the death of our head of state.

Threads don't get locked because of a tosser like you.

[Marmalade]

Tells me what type of 'person' you are as all you want to do is rake up any old crap you can find about someone especially at a time like this.

Disrespectful hasn't got a look in, using the current situation to spout your own pathetic prejudices.

If I wasn't a mod I would tell you what I really think of you and this is coming from someone who is in no way shape or form a royalist, just someone who can empathise with those who are deeply affected by the death of our head of state.

Threads don't get locked because of a tosser like you.

Pretty close to my feelings. However…

Matrix has been on here for many years and, like most of us, has an occasional turn where seems to go a bit ape-shit. I remember years ago he staged a protest over his belief that any forum dealing with punting HAD to have threads dedicated to high-res quality pictures (pornographic) of beautiful women. He just didn’t get that having the two together wasn’t a priority.

He’s had the current point explained and just doesn’t get it, poor lad. I’d suggest letting him have a wee rant and if no one feeds the thread he’ll run out steam. 

[daviemac]

Pretty close to my feelings. However…

Matrix has been on here for many years and, like most of us, has an occasional turn where seems to go a bit ape-shit. I remember years ago he staged a protest over his belief that any forum dealing with punting HAD to have threads dedicated to high-res quality pictures (pornographic) of beautiful women. He just didn’t get that having the two together wasn’t a priority.

He’s had the current point explained and just doesn’t get it, poor lad. I’d suggest letting him have a wee rant and if no one feeds the thread he’ll run out steam. 

I've made my point mate, nothing further for me to say.   

[timsussex]

External Link/Members Only

[akauya]

This thread is fun, reminds me of those extremist US Republicans who go "Now is not the time to discuss this!! Have some respect for the dead/grieving!!!" They usually use that phrase to shoot down any talk of gun control after school shootings.

It's a great phrase, it quashes any opportunity to talk about the uncomfortable things people (maybe?) should talk about.

For ages I've been racking my brains to find a similar phrase for when my wife tries to talk about uncomfortable shit with me! 

[covertlook]

Well the death of the queen brings a close to an era. Is it time to become a republic?

No. The monarchy is essential to keep venal politicians who want the job of Head of state away from the job of Head of state.  We could never live down having a war monger like B-Liar in the role.

[Marmalade]

This thread is fun, reminds me of those extremist US Republicans who go "Now is not the time to discuss this!! Have some respect for the dead/grieving!!!" They usually use that phrase to shoot down any talk of gun control after school shootings.

It's a great phrase, it quashes any opportunity to talk about the uncomfortable things people (maybe?) should talk about.

For ages I've been racking my brains to find a similar phrase for when my wife tries to talk about uncomfortable shit with me! 

It's sort of a good point. I suppose the logical objection is that gun control would lessen similar killings, which are the cause of the suffering, and banning discussion of gun control is generally not seen as sympathetic to those grieving. Republicans, as you are suggesting, are being disingenuous rather than really caring about people's feelings. Bereaved parents are usually the ones that call for gun control. i.e.banning discussion = less gun control = more suffering.

The opposite is true with 'banning' (although I don't think that's the correct thing) discussion of a republic while people are mourning. The only way that interrupting mourning with discussion of a republic – with a republic negating the monarchy – would be to lessen mourning of future sovereigns by not having any sovereigns. A bit like stopping school shootings by abolishing schools.

There could be a lot of word play here. So feel free to turn the analogy on its head!  The mods haven't banned the thread, nor should they. Any opposition to the discussion has simply been I think that maybe the timing was in bad taste?

Sorry, no solution to the dilemma with the wife. 

[LLPunting]

I always thought you were quite eloquent.  - Thanks, but if I want to be tossed off I'll see an SP.

I didn't realise that having an elected head of state was so controversial.  -  Given the various poor examples of "elected" heads of state and the corrupted systems that bring them to power and keep them there around the World and through history it's controversial in that it is flawed.  The consequences of which are invariably the suffering and suppression of the citizens.

As for ageist, when are you due to retire?    It's a shame you aren't funny.

I have made an argument. Perhaps you missed it. It doesn't have to be on your terms.  - Having read all your posts on this thread you have made no argument at all just accusations, groundless assumptions and otherwise childishly wailed "Why not now?"

Your criteria appears to be number of functions attended.  I set no such criteria, I asked you for suggestions that would qualify what you want from a head of state, the categorisation of performance and duties I suggested weren't absolute, you could qualify them differently and we could challenge that in a discussion or debate.

If you truly think I'm trolling, report me or come up with something  to debate with, rather than  your pseudo outrage.  - There is no pseudo outrage, I like many am simply calling your untimely behaviour brutish, disrespectful and antagonistic.  None of us have said this discussion shouldn't be held at all.

Anyone would think this thread is directly addressed to the "Royal" family.  Not anyone, just zealots being asked to wait a matter of days.

It's not up to you to define or enforce the grounds of discussion. Here we go, juvenile foot stamping and tantrums because you can't have an icecream because we're visiting nan in the hospital.

If this topic is forbidden, by forum rules, then so be it.  Histrionics much?

Edit; The highlighted part of your post says it all.   Actually the highlighted part reveals your partisan take on the exploitation of the proletariat which you seem to be railing at and your selective urgency about the injustice.

Just a thought, if I was to follow your "guidance" I wouldn't be trying to change the world on a punting forum. Simply having a discussion, or at least trying to.  Nonsense, you could debate it in any social medium including here where you genuinely wanted to hear the opinion of others, respect them and debate them when the others are ready to.

You're doing almost exactly what you've accused me of.   I'm doing nothing like what you've done.  I haven't made baseless accusations of you being worthless.  I haven't insinuated that you're a criminal pervert or perverter of criminal justice because you spoke up for someone who turned out to be a fiend.   I haven't written off all the good judgement you've made because of a single (or several) bad one(s).

I'll leave you to speculate on what or whom I hate.  I wouldn't squander any more time doing so, I have sex to purchase, nails to file and bins to put out.

[smokey]

Now the old birds gone it's time to get rid of the lot of them, interestingly the firm had a jolly in London today, we saw the queue from above and by far the majority of everyone under 30 I was with  could not give a toss so there's hope for the future