Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The people that did that, that urinated on memorials, defaced Winstons' churchills' statue are complete idiots, they don't deserve to go to University anyway, let them just be thugs and riot do whatever and eventually get caught. They're really good for noting other than senseless vandalim

    they tried burning a christmas tree as well on Trafalgar Sq *Claps* well done 'Students', you really proved your point
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    That's a rather bad misrepresentation of the monarchist position.
    Not in my view.

    Whilst I'll be the first to admit, we do not live in a wholly egalitarian society, the ideals of democracy (in that everyone is equal) should not be SO blatantly ignored/disregarded.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    Not in my view.

    Whilst I'll be the first to admit, we do not live in a wholly egalitarian society, the ideals of democracy (in that everyone is equal) should not be SO blatantly ignored/disregarded.
    I presume you mean everyone's vote is equal - not that everyone is economically equal. Cos that's not democracy

    Anyway there's the inherent tension between ensuring the public view is consider and people power works but also ensuring government is responsible and that what is right, not what is popular, is done.

    There's never a neat and tidy divide between the two, but government should still retain the right to defy public opinion if public opinion is badly informed or prejudiced.

    I make no comment on whether the student fees issue is one of these examples, and indeed I feel that the line is a little too handy for government right now - I'd favour it being (a little) more susceptible to public pressure - but you cannot have democracy without making government inherently unstable.

    And to repeat - your deduction of monarchism is as incorrect as assuming all protesters are bomb-throwing anarchists.
    • Offline

      1
      I wonder what Charles thought when the students shouted "Off with their heads."

      Reversal there, eh? It always used to be the monarch calling for the removal of the heads of their subjects. And reminsicent of how the populus reacted to the French Royal Family during the Revolution.

      Maybe they should have kidnapped 'Cami' and negotiated her release in return for Clegg...
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      He deserves it anyway he's a ****er. But it probably wasn't students. It was the "professional rioters". They riot for any cause just as an excuse to break windows.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      what I don't understand is why the car went so close to the protests - I'm not normally one to shout *CONSPIRACY* whenever anything happens, but it seems very odd to me that this was allowed to happen when it could easily have been prevented - I haven't seen a newspaper yet today but I'm guessing that now the headlines will be about these attacks rather than the fee rise, which is a clever way of pretending it isn't a big deal.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by elandar)
      lol such a stupid thing to do. They're pretty lucky they didn't get shot...
      I think if they got shot, which would never happen, it would greatly increase sympathy for them.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by d123)
      what I don't understand is why the car went so close to the protests - I'm not normally one to shout *CONSPIRACY* whenever anything happens, but it seems very odd to me that this was allowed to happen when it could easily have been prevented - I haven't seen a newspaper yet today but I'm guessing that now the headlines will be about these attacks rather than the fee rise, which is a clever way of pretending it isn't a big deal.
      I'd assign to incompetence that which appears like malice - probably just a dumb driver.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Charles and his horse were unaffected. Poor Rolls Royce though.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Geez. Some of these responses show that increasing tuition fees wouldn't be so bad, to keep idiots on this thread out.

      Or at least send them back to Primary School.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by gladders)
      I'd assign to incompetence that which appears like malice - probably just a dumb driver.
      True, incompetence is probably a better explanation!
      Offline

      4
      ReputationRep:


      Ahh the Youtube comment section has been invaded by the likes of Jeremy Kyle and BNP supporters echoing the words "YOU'RE A DISGRACE" ... hahahaha. :ninja:
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by manchild007)
      Yes, this certainly justifies being born into a life of such utter wealth and privilege (funded partly by the tax payer one can add), all because after all, you happen to be of a particular 'desired/superior' blood-line and because of the idiotic notion that its imperative that the country have a pretentious Royal Family.
      So you have such an irational hatrid of the monarchy that you would get rid of them despite the money bring into this country?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aj12)
      So you have such an irational hatrid of the monarchy that you would get rid of them despite the money bring into this country?
      No, I have hatred for people being given huge levels of wealth and privilege, partly funded by the taxpayer, because they perceive themselves to be of a specific/superior blood-line. It would be foolish for one to think we live in a completely egalitarian society, but disbanding those ideals is equally, if not more, foolish.

      In addition, you have no idea how much tourism would be or would not be affected without a monarchy (I do believe the pyramids in Egypt after all are still quite popular, despite not having a head in the last couple of centuries no?); stop using such fallacious arguments to add what little credibility you can to your wanted justification.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by manchild007)
      No, I have hatred for people being given huge levels of wealth and privilege, partly funded by the taxpayer, because they perceive themselves to be of a specific/superior blood-line. It would be foolish for one to think we live in a completely egalitarian society, but disbanding those ideals is equally, if not more, foolish.
      We do not live in an egalitarian society and never will. Getting rid of the monarchy will not change this.

      Most of the country disagree with you as the Monarchy does not affect anyone, they have no power and only idiots like you want to get rid of them out of some misunderstood idea of equality.

      The monarchy is partly funded by the tax payer but as I pointed out they bring in far more money than they cost.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aj12)
      The monarchy is partly funded by the tax payer but as I pointed out they bring in far more money than they cost.
      What a terribly inept response; if you choose to engage in name calling as opposed to having a civilised debate, then that is your perogative.

      Thus far you've used only subjective and moreover fallacious reasoning, albeit sophist in nature; case in point being AGAIN, you mentioning tourism and the "money they bring in", not knowing anywhere near the effects on tourism should the country not have a monarchy. Unless you've carried out such a study :rolleyes:

      Stick with your nonsense; every debate needs it "idiot" and you certainly do exemplify this to no avail.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by d123)
      what I don't understand is why the car went so close to the protests - I'm not normally one to shout *CONSPIRACY* whenever anything happens, but it seems very odd to me that this was allowed to happen when it could easily have been prevented - I haven't seen a newspaper yet today but I'm guessing that now the headlines will be about these attacks rather than the fee rise, which is a clever way of pretending it isn't a big deal.
      They said on the news earlier that the route was clear a couple of minutes before passing through. Seems plausible considering how much the protesters have been moving around.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by JustSmile)
      Hardly. The police react to public demands, a result of moral panics from the media claiming things like 'crime at an all time high' and 'more killers/neds/yobs than ever before!'. The government and public pressure the police for more results, so you can blame them for legitimising violence through that pressure to get results by whatever means necessary.

      The police were just trying to do their job. Students were supposed to be protesting about increases in fees, not kicking the crap out of police who were there to ensure their own and others safety. What heroes.
      From what you've said you have a set of views and beliefs that are indictive of low intelligence, there's no point me arguing with you as you genuinely can't change your views, your brain won't allow it. Laters.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      The amount of papers today that basically shouted "Students attack our precious Charles" was disgusting. It could so easily have been prevented as i am pretty sure there is more that just one road within London? The Government and Media are going to jump on events like these and use them against students, just need to be more careful despite the majority of people left last night weren't genuine students, just trouble makers.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by manchild007)
      What a terribly inept response; if you choose to engage in name calling as opposed to having a civilised debate, then that is your perogative.

      Thus far you've used only subjective and moreover fallacious reasoning, albeit sophist in nature; case in point being AGAIN, you mentioning tourism and the "money they bring in", not knowing anywhere near the effects on tourism should the country not have a monarchy. Unless you've carried out such a study :rolleyes:

      Stick with your nonsense; every debate needs it "idiot" and you certainly do exemplify this to no avail.
      Your clearly an idiot because I have told you the royal wedding will bring in at least 500 million pounds that otherwise would not be brought in to the Uk thats a pretty good reason to keep the monarchy. Getting rid of it serves no purpose at all and will cost the UK money in the long run. End off.

      Its clear you have some irrational hatrid of the monarchy for reasons Icannot understand other than you see to think having a monarchy that has no power somehow makes the country unequal.

      Don't bother replying I won't read it I have better things to do than pursue some ridiculous debate with you
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.