Will ED pubs be showing the royal wedding? (Lounged)

[flocker spotter]

eat your peas, people in Africa would love to have a plate of peas like yours. be thankful for your peas.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding' (or

> the royal anything) should surely be left to do so

> - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we? Security costs to public purse estimated at approximately ?30M.

[JohnL]

kibris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why don't we all just watch the FA CUP FINAL more

> fun in that than from these people that just take

> our money

William is making a mad dash to be at the FA Cup final according to the Express

Potential for a missed speech I'm sure

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/949435/royal-wedding-latest-prince-william-attend-FA-Cup-Final

I love that for us plebs - the last paragraph states pubs will be open longer.

[BrandNewGuy]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.

Ditto the 2012 Olympics. Some people's bread and circuses are royalty, some are elite sports. I couldn't be a*sed with either but I'm not decrying others for their choices.

[Louisa]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.

Exactly. It seems that it?s ok for the struggling person on the street to be paying towards the wedding of one of the many hangers, yet we can?t afford to give Doctors, Nurses and others pay rises. I think it?s shocking.

This guy isn?t even first in line to the throne. They perform nothing but ceremonial BS. We have it shoved down our throats by the media, and the best thing we are offered in response is the so called privilege to watch this circus without a tv licence. Pathetic.

Louisa.

[micromacromonkey]

Actually Harry did serve on the front line for his country, so that certainly makes him the most deserving member of his parasitic family.

[flocker spotter]

Deserving of what ?

[micromacromonkey]

A free council house when we kick the rest of them out onto the street.

[Jules-and-Boo]

why pick on the royals? there are many deserving of the title "Freeloader".

[JohnL]

Maybe the royal wedding could be sponsored or product placement used.

I noted impressively that when singing 'we're in the money' the CEO of Sainsbury's picked up a cup of Nero's coffee (Isn't Starbucks the Sainsburys partner) :)

Edit: The UK sites have cut out the 'product placement' - but the Irish ones haven't LOL

[flocker spotter]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".

eat your peas, people in Africa would love to have a plate of peas like yours. be thankful for your peas.

[staplemeg]

-- moved topic --

[Louisa]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".

It?s not just about them being ?freeloaders? though is it? It?s about what they represent. Unelected privilege. Unlike our elected representatives, these people are not held accountable for anything.

Louisa.

[Jules-and-Boo]

so, why single them out? would removal of the royals solve all of the problems with inequality?

[flocker spotter]

laughable.

[Louisa]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?

They?re singled out for the reasons I explained. They are in a position of privilege as a birth right rather than a democratic right. You can?t solve inequality when people like them are given access to state funds to pay for security towards their weddding. You think it?s fair that people are going to food banks and struggling to pay the bills, whilst these wealthy aristocrats are flaunting their state funded wedding on state funded television? It?s just absurd in the 21st century.

Louisa.

[rendelharris]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?

Nope. Be a start though. How can you ever hope to have true equality in a country where the head of state is selected through an accident of birth, paid a fortune and treated by the majority of politicians and media as akin to a deity? It heavily reinforces the concept that each has their allotted place.

[adonirum]

RH, you can never have true equality in society as it just does not work like that. You always have to have those that rule and teach and, likewise, you have to have those that learn, submit and obey. Simple, really.

[rendelharris]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RH, you can never have true equality in society as

> it just does not work like that. You always have

> to have those that rule and teach and, likewise,

> you have to have those that learn, submit and

> obey. Simple, really.

What a depressing worldview. Might as well chuck it all in and go back to feudalism then, eh?

You will always, it is true, have those who lead and those who follow. That doesn't have to imply the totalitarian "ruling" and "obeying" and "submitting", and most importantly who leads and who follows can be predicated on ability, desire and work ethic rather than accidents of birth and whose many times great grandad was best at nicking land and goods off others a thousand years ago.

[flocker spotter]

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear"

Gramsci

[adonirum]

RH, you're quite right regarding "ability, desire, work ethic" etc, but that is surely to do with equality of opportunity, which I wholeheartedly endorse, rather than actual bona fide equality. Most have to obey and there are those that decide/ tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it necessarily follows some are ruling and others are submitting. If society did not work in this way, then surely there would be anarchy and no society? (Setting aside what Thatcher said!!).

[flocker spotter]

The social contract WRT our mutant strain of democracy is a convenient myth to justify systemic inequality

[rendelharris]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Most have to obey and there are those that decide/

> tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it

> necessarily follows some are ruling and others are

> submitting.

Somewhat discounting the role of an elected legislature there, aren't you?

[Robert Poste's Child]

And the fact that everyone, including the 'lawmakers', is subject to the same laws once they're in force. Ditto rulers - that was the point of Magna Carta, which is still what many Brits recognise as the basis of this country's constitution.

[Robert Poste's Child]

micromacromonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually Harry did serve on the front line for his

> country, so that certainly makes him the most

> deserving member of his parasitic family.

So apparently did Patrick, the homeless guy in the wheelchair who was sheltering in the doorway of the Grove Tavern before they boarded it up to force him out.