Why no thread on Phil the Greek?
Discussion
Sway said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.
We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
Completely agree. We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
There is also of course how the recipients/victims of those 'gaffes/insults/abuses' took them and responded to them - from what I can tell, he's not offended those he was actually speaking to, but others who became offended on their behalf.
Halmyre said:
Sway said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.
We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
Completely agree. We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
There is also of course how the recipients/victims of those 'gaffes/insults/abuses' took them and responded to them - from what I can tell, he's not offended those he was actually speaking to, but others who became offended on their behalf.
Halmyre said:
Sway said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.
We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
Completely agree. We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
There is also of course how the recipients/victims of those 'gaffes/insults/abuses' took them and responded to them - from what I can tell, he's not offended those he was actually speaking to, but others who became offended on their behalf.
Instead, all I've ever seen is grins and laughing along with the joke.
Taylor James said:
Halmyre said:
Sway said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.
We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
Completely agree. We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
There is also of course how the recipients/victims of those 'gaffes/insults/abuses' took them and responded to them - from what I can tell, he's not offended those he was actually speaking to, but others who became offended on their behalf.
Mobile Chicane said:
Why are they bothering to keep that old coot going?
To what end? He's almost 100.
Would be the argument were it you or I.
Probably for the same reason they try and keep you going, or your mother, or Captain Tom, or anyone else in a civilised wealthy country that isn't dominated by ageism or class hatred. To what end? He's almost 100.
Would be the argument were it you or I.
What is it about the Royals that brings out the worst in people?
Sway said:
piquet said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.
We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
80 years of public service and received nothing in exchange, hasn't taken a penny off the public, received no benefits in kind, paid his taxes, lived a life of poverty like he was born into before his uncle got him into the exclusive clubWe need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
But they are the royal family, chosen by god!
His children are all pillars of the community and shining examples of what the church of Engalnd ( which his wife is head of) preaches along with their chosen partners, as are his grandchildren and their partners
I always find it weird that PH so condescending about people blowing themselves up for the sky fairies can believe we should support a family because they were chosen by a the sky fairies
The queen is the only one i have any respect for, the sooner we can be rid of that whole anachronistic hypocritical establishment the better
I don't believe we need a head of state. Bridges don't need opening, cornerstones don't need laying etc, when the queen dies we mourne and move onto the modern world
If we have to have a head of state an elected head of state then so be it, Charles can stand with the other candidates and politicians should be barred from the role (as well as the house of lords for that matter. The royal family makes as much sense as the role of prime minister going to the Johnson family for the rest of time
oh but think of the loss of tourism, that makes no sense, more people go to Paris then London, none of the royal family are at heathrow welcoming people to the country and thanking them for coming
There was another thread and it mentioned one of the dutch royal family who works as a pilot, it turned out lots of royal like to be pilots, of coarse they do, they're like a head of state, most the time they're not needed, and when they are really needed there is often very little they can do, consider themselves important and most the time won't shut up
he's an old man and i wish him well, yes he's done well to reach his age with the very best medical care that even with an unlimited budget you'd have difficulty buying, which of coarse he doesn't have to pay for as he's NHS
Barts has limited capacity, most people his age would never get there, too old, the fact he's gone and means there are other people who haven't, the royal family have real cost to the people, for example I worked at a hospital one saturday, but there was no emergency theatre until 3 ( this is the list at the weekend where urgent cases are operated on) so the urgent cases were delayed 7 hours, why? Prince Charles was playing Polo just in case he was injured.
Then there is a real tax cost, in reality closer to 1/3 of a billion a year
I wish him well, but when it comes to the royal family like burning old ladies with cats, neutering homosexuals, limiting voting to landowners, they are a thing of the past
b
ks.ks. My wife needed an emergency operation about 20 years ago. The time from saying it's an emergency, to being in theater was probably 5 minutes. They didn't even get her in a gown.If my local hospital can pull that off for an ordinary member of the public I can't see how a theater set would be set aside just because Charles was riding a horse!
Mobile Chicane said:
Why are they bothering to keep that old coot going?
To what end? He's almost 100.
Would be the argument were it you or I.
Sorry but the above is complete nonsense. It does not depend upon age, it depends on the pathology and an assessment of physiological reserve. If you have pathology which looks like it can be reversed, and you have the physiological reserve to survive the treatment then we will give you a go. Age has a significant impact on physiological reserve, but there are SOME nonagenarians out there with better physiological reserve than SOME 65 year olds. These are never easy decisions to make in real life, weighing potential benefits against risks, likely outcomes and patient wishes often accompanied by difficult conversations. If we were just going to say "s/he's a bit old let's not bother" it would make my job much easier but would be morally completely wrongTo what end? He's almost 100.
Would be the argument were it you or I.
CharlesdeGaulle said:
Probably for the same reason they try and keep you going, or your mother, or Captain Tom, or anyone else in a civilised wealthy country that isn't dominated by ageism or class hatred.
What is it about the Royals that brings out the worst in people?
Their racism, xenophobia, infidelity, associations with paedo’s, fraud, double standards, snobbery and total irrelevance in modern society? What is it about the Royals that brings out the worst in people?
HTH
CharlesdeGaulle said:
Have you ever met The Queen or Prince Philip? Stop churning out bks.
Which part is bks. ks? It’s all well documented. Even the most fervent Royalist can’t defend the indefensible. You can ignore it, or brush it away, but if you want to claim ‘b
ks’ I suggest you provide some proof? The question was why do many find them unpalatable. CharlesdeGaulle said:
piquet said:
stuff
So much bile, anger and resentment. Take a breath chum, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. I get that there are a chunk of folk who would rather we were a republic, but then I look at the USA, or France, or other big Countries with no Monarchy & feel they are missing out. I look back at the UK & feel the "ridiculous pomp & ceremony" is worthwhile.
Yes, there are some Royals who take the piss (Prince Andrew, we're looking at you!) and need 'striking off', but they do a helluva lot of work, they employ a lot of people.....& you only need to look across the channel to wonder at the quality of President that you can end up with. Great, you can chuck them out, but that is because they are often only there because of a power-crazed mindset!
If people think they don't help bring tourism and raise the stature of the UK in the world, well, I simply disagree. I bet there are many who would like royal residences to be pulled down to make housing for the homeless
mikeiow said:
CharlesdeGaulle said:
piquet said:
stuff
So much bile, anger and resentment. Take a breath chum, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. I get that there are a chunk of folk who would rather we were a republic, but then I look at the USA, or France, or other big Countries with no Monarchy & feel they are missing out. I look back at the UK & feel the "ridiculous pomp & ceremony" is worthwhile.
Yes, there are some Royals who take the piss (Prince Andrew, we're looking at you!) and need 'striking off', but they do a helluva lot of work, they employ a lot of people.....& you only need to look across the channel to wonder at the quality of President that you can end up with. Great, you can chuck them out, but that is because they are often only there because of a power-crazed mindset!
If people think they don't help bring tourism and raise the stature of the UK in the world, well, I simply disagree. I bet there are many who would like royal residences to be pulled down to make housing for the homeless
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff