Royal baby

[Droogs]

Nah just too lazy to pick up the camera

 

[RogerS]

Chaps, the topic is the amount of news coverage. Not an opportunity to have a pop at the Royal Family. Some here like them, some don't but it borders on politics IMO.

 

[niagra]

Chaps, the topic is the amount of news coverage. Not an opportunity to have a pop at the Royal Family. Some here like them, some don't but it borders on politics IMO.

You've hit the nail on the head. The Windsors should have nothing to do with politics but they do, so let's close the topic before I get cross.

 

[RogerS]

Chaps, the topic is the amount of news coverage. Not an opportunity to have a pop at the Royal Family. Some here like them, some don't but it borders on politics IMO.

You've hit the nail on the head. The Windsors should have nothing to do with politics but they do, so let's close the topic before I get cross.

You're doing it again.

 

[woodfarmer]

I think I must have miss heard the news, I thought with all the election talk she was joining Labour

 

[RogerS]

I think I must have miss heard the news, I thought with all the election talk she was joining Labour

=D> =D> =D>

 

[treeturner123]

Hi

On the whole, I'd rather have a royal family than a president. Just think for example how much the current president of France has (or has not) squandered on personal gratification. Surly a non political head of government is preferable? Or is that too political!!

Phil

 

[RogerS]

The thing is, Phil, that the Royal Family are a topic just like politics, religion etc. People's views will be polarised and no amount of posts advocating ones own viewpoint will change the minds of the opposite camp. And then very soon, it all starts to get heated, babies get slung out of prams (I admit to doing this myself in the past), lots of ill will and then the thread gets locked. We've been there many, many times in the past.

If you take even this simple thread that made a very valid point about the daft media coverage and inane questions asked by interviewers it wasn't long before the snide digs at the Royal Family started to come out. That's not what the forum is for. There are plenty of other forums, newspaper comments where filk can argue the toss if they want to.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Well said Roger

 

[niagra]

Roger, I agree with you 99%.

The thread should never have been started, it's got nothing to do with woodworking. Many people have very strong views about this and other subjects which shouldn't be discussed on this forum. I for one, am one of those who has a strong opinion and found it impossible to not react, so apologies for doing so. However, I object to the term "snide" which implies an indirect derogatory comment - mine are certainly derogatory but definitely not indirect.

I will be hitting the report button in future, for any contentious posts, rather than commenting.

 

[RogerP]

Roger, I agree with you 99%.
The thread should never have been started, it's got nothing to do with woodworking. ...............

...well this section Board index » General Chat (Off-Topic) I thought was for .......... off-topic stuff. :?

 

[niagra]

6a - politics not regarded as acceptable

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Couldn't give a flying f$%k myself.

+1. Another baby being born into a life on benefits.

So that isn't in any way contentious? You should hit the report button.

 

[doorframe]

The thread should never have been started, it's got nothing to do with woodworking. .

That's why it's in the General Chat section, not the General Woodworking section.

I personally have never been a fan of the current Royal Family, but they are a reminder of my national identity, and in an age when I sometimes wonder what country I'm actually living in, I prefer them to any other alternative.

However, I would still have preferred 'Alice'. 8)

 

[John15]

My thoughts are that The Royal Family are a relic from the past and should have no place of privilege in our country today . I would welcome a way to reduce them to a simple Mr and Mrs, similar to most folk who have to strive for a living without hereditary benefits.

John

 

[IHc1vtr+]

What we need is another Oliver Cromwell.

 

[iNewbie]

Someone in The Times said that the second child often arrives quicker than the first. That's unbelievable!

Last one was allegedly delivered via City-link. Think this ones DHL - keeping it in the family. :mrgreen:

Good Luck to 'em I say.

 

[RogerP]

My thoughts are that The Royal Family are a relic from the past and should have no place of privilege in our country today . I would welcome a way to reduce them to a simple Mr and Mrs, similar to most folk who have to strive for a living without hereditary benefits.
John

I assume you'd want to include all the Dukes, Marquesses, Viscounts, Barons, Baronets, Knights and their feminine equivalents?
To make it nice and simple perhaps we should just call everyone “comrade”.

 

[lurker]

Whatever system a country adopts, some animals always end up more equal than others.

I'm OK with the RF but its the toady folks around them that annoy me.

 

[n0legs]

What we need is another Oliver Cromwell.

Yes.