billy scissors
a bit fond
I'm sooo glad I've got tomorrow and tuesday off work.God save the Queen!
So glad this Jubilee madness finishes tomorrow. What really bugs me, as someone who'd like to think of herself as a Republican, is the fact that the media (especially big institutions like the BBC) could have used the run-up to this weekend as a great opportunity to produce some interesting programming about alternative views on the monarchy. However, as far as I can tell it's just been the same old sycophantic shite, very dull and not at all balanced.
weird how when you Brits you say "Republican"
it something that means something totally different from what it means over in the USA...
Yes, it is a bit weird- I've never understood it in terms of being a name for a political party in the US as I thought you're already a republic of sorts, but then I don't know very much about American politics.
EDIT: I've just found out that although this law is rarely enforced, under the Treason Felony Act of 1848 it is still technically illegal to promote Republicanism in print here in the UK, and until fairly recently it was an imprisonable offence to do so. Shocking.
Not to detract from this rivetting discussion about the British political system, but I was reading I Can Haz Cheeseburger photos and came to this disturbing thought: what if people are taking pictures of their deceased cats and putting cute captions on them?
Do cat bodies do this? No cat I've ever owned or housesit takes these shapes. Creepy.
I've had cats that sleep like that in the past. It's normally when they are feeling completely secure in their surroundings.
Oh shit. I must make cats edgy. Or they are reflecting another being not completely comfortable in their environment and mirroring that.
It isn't unusual for laws to remain on the statute book but to slip into disuse. What's "shocking" is that you want to try to portray this as a Serious Issue. Nobody has been prosecuted under the provisions of the Treason Felony Act in almost one hundred and thirty years. Spare us the faux-outrage.
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of that great republic, the United States of America - it's a bastion of social and economic justice, is it? A beacon of hope, lighting the way to "freedom" for the benighted British masses, so in thrall to royalty?
Hi The Most Excellent GwtT,Well sorry, but I do think of it as a serious issue- it's not faux outrage, I just find it strange that such an outdated and clearly useless law is still in existence. Also, I never even mentioned the USA except in the context of different meanings of the term 'Republican', which is a separate discussion altogether. Oh, and don't patronise me. Thanks.
Well sorry, but I do think of it as a serious issue- it's not faux outrage, I just find it strange that such an outdated and clearly useless law is still in existence. Also, I never even mentioned the USA except in the context of different meanings of the term 'Republican', which is a separate discussion altogether. Oh, and don't patronise me. Thanks.
Smash the aristocracy!
Republicanism: insipid, gesture politics, espoused by teenagers and bed-wetting, middle class liberals who want, merely, to affect a superficial, "anti-Establishment" pose. Risible. Opposition to the monarchy is a distraction from the real structures of power and inequality in the twenty-first United Kingdom. If you're going to use a political "cause" as a vehicle through which you can try to make yourself seem transgressive on an Internet message board, find one that will redistribute wealth to a greater degree than the paltry £0.70 per person, per annum, that the House of Windsor costs us. Otherwise, you're just perpetuating the problem by which you claim to be so exercised.
It isn't 1777 - or even 1977 - anymore.
Hi The Most Excellent GwtT,
Couldn't agree with you more about the jubilee. The BBC appear to be in the thrall of the royals. Over the last couple of days with dreadful events in Syria etc, the headlines are dominated by all this nonsense. And you are right to be angry about that law still being on the statute book.
Yeah, just answer my question about the USA, since you referred to it.
If you don't want to be patronised, then don't raise an issue where none exists just so that you can kid yourself that you are, in some way, Radical. You're not.
Smash the aristocracy!
Republicanism: insipid, gesture politics, espoused by teenagers and bed-wetting, middle class liberals who want, merely, to affect a superficial, "anti-Establishment" pose. Risible. Opposition to the monarchy is a distraction from the real structures of power and inequality in the twenty-first United Kingdom. If you're going to use a political "cause" as a vehicle through which you can try to make yourself seem transgressive on an Internet message board, find one that will redistribute wealth to a greater degree than the paltry £0.70 per person, per annum, that the House of Windsor costs us. Otherwise, you're just perpetuating the problem by which you claim to be so exercised.
It isn't 1777 - or even 1977 - anymore.
OK then. No, I don't hold the US up as an example of how the UK should be run, not in the slightest. Aside from the US having its own problems, every country has different needs and it would be silly to fashion the leadership and functioning of one completely after another. As I've said before, I won't pretend to know a huge amount about American politics so I'm not going to get into a big debate about this.
You seem pretty riled up about my political views and the way I choose to express them (as seen below) considering you don't know me. I would tell you to calm the f*** down but it would be entirely useless.
If you say so.
Seriously? You can't defend the principles you claim to hold? Never thought about republicanism in any great detail? Just unthinkingly parrotting what Morrissey says about the royals?
Well, there's a surprise.