[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[DavidinSouthampton]

I thought the same as you but I then researched it.

We bin the Royal Family and the House of Lords. We replace it with an elected ‘House Of Independent Peers’ (no political party allegiance and campaigning, community nominations only for high achievers) and then have a President selected from the peers who’d have similar powers to the Queen, all 4 year one-off terms. The commons stays the same but with FPTP ditched leaving Belarus the only European state who uses this antiquated system.

Just no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We happened upon a documentary last week on daytime television about the House of Lords, and it was fascinating. It was from a few years ago and a lot of it was about Alf (Lord) Dubs looking to get us to take more unaccompanied Child refugees - about 5 years ago(?).

But there were one or two comments coming from people who said that they would only take opposition to things so far and that, at the end of the day, the wishes of the elected house must hold sway.

The whole thing just left me thinking that the House of Lords is a complete and utter waste of time. And although I have a lot of respect for the Queen, the stuff that has come out recently (and not so recently) about the Royal Family having sight of legislation before it is passed and gaining exemptions for things or getting things changed has made me fear that she is more than just a figurehead.

So I would FULLY agree with having an elected Upper House which actually has some teeth. The current system is just a way of perpetuating the class system, so any idea of a meritocracy is blown out of the water - viz the very excellent book by Will Hutton - "The State We're In" - from some 20 years ago.

 

[Clive Walker]

except parliament of course. the head of state is there by act of parliament, they are really just chairman of the board, for PR and to sign off business, with little meaningful power. if we get a nutter we can change them.

in reality we know that members of the RF have lobbied parliament and have got away with it from fox hunting to same sex marriage.

 

[beorhthelm]

in reality we know that members of the RF have lobbied parliament and have got away with it from fox hunting to same sex marriage.

good illustration, they have to lobby parliament just the same as every other interest group. they have no power directly.

 

[Simster]

good illustration, they have to lobby parliament just the same as every other interest group. they have no power directly.

Sorry, you seem to be saying that if I want to choose my head of state, we can do so? In reality, this is utter nonsense - the mainstream parties can't even eliminate hereditary peers from the House of Lords - something which really ought to be an open and shut case these days - so what chance is there of providing a sensible mechanism that gives the people a choice of who heads the state.

To expand on this further, it's not the fact we have a head of state, it's the fact there is an entire extended family of these spongers. Who gets to say to what extent they should be supported? Plus of course, it is a fact that these people are above the law. The crown prosecution doesn't prosecute itself, does it? If Prince Andrew is a nonce (and let's be honest, his conduct isn't very encouraging), he wouldn't see justice in this country. There is no way he'd be prosecuted. He doesn't get prosecuted for a lot of things that he might have a case to answer for: he's sold buildings that don't belong to him, he has misused RAF equipment for his own gain, and he's never had a case to answer. You might ask yourself why.

The apparatus to get rid of these people just isn't there to all practical intents and purposes.

 

[Clive Walker]

good illustration, they have to lobby parliament just the same as every other interest group. they have no power directly.

They have a duty to be impartial.

It's very simple: voters have a right to know if the RF is influencing government policy.

The monarchy has always been defended on the grounds that the royals don't get involved in politics. We have clear proof that Charles does get involved

 

[Hugo Rune]

We happened upon a documentary last week on daytime television about the House of Lords, and it was fascinating. It was from a few years ago and a lot of it was about Alf (Lord) Dubs looking to get us to take more unaccompanied Child refugees - about 5 years ago(?).

But there were one or two comments coming from people who said that they would only take opposition to things so far and that, at the end of the day, the wishes of the elected house must hold sway.

The whole thing just left me thinking that the House of Lords is a complete and utter waste of time. And although I have a lot of respect for the Queen, the stuff that has come out recently (and not so recently) about the Royal Family having sight of legislation before it is passed and gaining exemptions for things or getting things changed has made me fear that she is more than just a figurehead.

So I would FULLY agree with having an elected Upper House which actually has some teeth. The current system is just a way of perpetuating the class system, so any idea of a meritocracy is blown out of the water - viz the very excellent book by Will Hutton - "The State We're In" - from some 20 years ago.

This.

The problem is the same one Plato battled with in his republic idea. How do the you weed out the Boris Johnsons and Jeremy Corbyns and replace them with David Attenborough and Chris Wittys? My house of peers idea would be more like a 4 year jury service, it would be online voting only, probably have a number of rounds. Those ‘seeking’ office would somehow be prevented from taking office, it’s the House of Commons for them.

 

[beorhthelm]

Sorry, you seem to be saying that if I want to choose my head of state, we can do so?

im stating a fact, that parliament in sovereign and the monarch is place by act of parliament. no party seems interested in changing this presently. everything else is just speculation.

 

[Simster]

im stating a fact, that parliament in sovereign and the monarch is place by act of parliament. no party seems interested in changing this presently. everything else is just speculation.

No party can even take their seats without swearing allegiance to the monarchy. How is that democratic? The whole British apparatus is geared to keeping them in their position of privilege. GSTQ is our national anthem - some people genuinely consider the republican third of the population as quislings if they don't sing it. The crown does the prosecuting - meaning the crown is above the law. The BBC is never even handed about royalty - it doesn't even allow "Have Your Say" comments on ANY royal article, ever.

I recently came across a youtube video explaining how East Germany was democratic, but just not like western democracy. Your insistence that everything is parliament is sovereign and royalty could be removed tomorrow if the will of the people was there reminds me of that video. It's utter nonsense.

 

[Hugo Rune]

im stating a fact, that parliament in sovereign and the monarch is place by act of parliament. no party seems interested in changing this presently. everything else is just speculation.

No party will mention this whilst the Queen is still alive. She has the overwhelming popularity and support of the Country, we are lucky to have her. The problem comes with her replacements, that’s when people need to act and end this royal farce.

 

[beorhthelm]

This.

The problem is the same one Plato battled with in his republic idea. How do the you weed out the Boris Johnsons and Jeremy Corbyns and replace them with David Attenborough and Chris Wittys? My house of peers idea would be more like a 4 year jury service, it would be online voting only, probably have a number of rounds. Those ‘seeking’ office would somehow be prevented from taking office, it’s the House of Commons for them.

though i like it in principle, problem with this is many are simply not capable of understanding legislation and theorising the many implications of something. so they'd rely on and be led by an official body of advisers and an unofficial army of lobbyists. other than an education qualification i think you have to have people in politics that want to be in politics, so select from the pool of councillors across the country. the problems with Lords are not that big a deal imo (only a revising chamber), its minor reform like enforce attendance and participation (if you dont you're out).

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

The whole thing just left me thinking that the House of Lords is a complete and utter waste of time.

This is the 21st century and we still have 26 unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords. This is absurd for the "Mother of all Parliaments". They have the right to vote on extremely important issues like the right to die and assisted suicide. I wouldn't presume to know which way they would vote on such issues but I cannot reconcile the idea of religious people voting on behalf of what is now to all intents and purposes a secular country. It is just wrong

 

[beorhthelm]

No party will mention this whilst the Queen is still alive. She has the overwhelming popularity and support of the Country, we are lucky to have her. The problem comes with her replacements, that’s when people need to act and end this royal farce.

its more likely once Elizabeth passes. parliament has changes the law on succession a couple of time the past decade, small steps only takes a one to be a dick, public opinion to swing against and politics will follow.

 

[Clive Walker]

I’m content in my belief that the monarchy will be abolished within my lifetime. Far more countries have moved to a republic in recent years.

Britain as a country is changing and the traditionalists are dying out. It’s a bit like churches 50 years ago, packed back then but only a hand few of elderly people now.

 

[franks brother]

 

[Clive Walker]

Prince Andrew to challenge US court jurisdiction in sexual assault lawsuit

 

[Happy Exile]

This is the 21st century and we still have 26 unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords. This is absurd for the "Mother of all Parliaments". They have the right to vote on extremely important issues like the right to die and assisted suicide. I wouldn't presume to know which way they would vote on such issues but I cannot reconcile the idea of religious people voting on behalf of what is now to all intents and purposes a secular country. It is just wrong

I think our government system is only exceeded by Iran for unelected religious people with seats of power. I don't think that's right but I've swung more in favour of the House of Lords in recent years when people from all parties have stood against the government in the interests of upholding the law. When you don't have to be elected you can be a lot more principled it seems. The way the Lords are appointed needs to be changed though.

 

[AmexRuislip]

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/jenny-bond-prince-andrew/

Good piece to read..

 

[Insel affe]

What’s this fool on BBC1 for tonight !!

Ok, I get the documentary on Prince Phillip has members of the royal family sharing their thoughts and memories of him….

But…..

Who thought it was a good idea to include this person should be included…,

I winced when I saw Harry, but turned over when this nause should up.

 

[Bry Nylon]

What’s this fool on BBC1 for tonight !!

Ok, I get the documentary on Prince Phillip has members of the royal family sharing their thoughts and memories of him….

But…..

Who thought it was a good idea to include this person should be included…

I'm surprised his opening comment wasn't, "I have absolutely no recollection of that person. None whatsoever."

 

[Insel affe]

I'm surprised his opening comment wasn't, "I have absolutely no recollection of that person. None whatsoever."

I’ve heard he has opened a new pub…