# Very sad news



## Garno (9 Apr 2021)

Very sad day, Prince Phillip the Queen's husband has sadly passed away.

R.I.P Prince Phillip


----------



## marcros (9 Apr 2021)

yes, sad day indeed.


----------



## paulrbarnard (9 Apr 2021)

Almost made it to 100 so not a bad innings at all.


----------



## Jacob (9 Apr 2021)

Which one is he then? I can't keep track of these royals.


----------



## MARK.B. (9 Apr 2021)

Yes a sad day indeed may he RIP


----------



## Garno (9 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Which one is he then? I can't keep track of these royals.



Duke of Edinburgh


----------



## TRITON (9 Apr 2021)

Sad ?. Condolences to the family and friends but hardly anything to be personally sad about.

99 years of privileged living, while the country goes down the pan. Keep their heads down and maybe the daily mail wont run stories on their wayward children.


----------



## doctor Bob (9 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Which one is he then? I can't keep track of these royals.



I suspect 99.9% of the population know who he is. Boasting about ignorance ................. your a strange one.

I rather liked the old boy (HRH), I do like Jacob as well, cracks me up from time to time.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> Sad ?. Condolences to the family and friends but hardly anything to be personally sad about.
> 
> 99 years of privileged living, while the country goes down the pan. Keep their heads down and maybe the daily mail wont run stories on their wayward children.



Yes, I feel particularly sorry for the Queen.

Privileged living? - I wouldn't want to live like he did, and I doubt few others would either. Even fewer would be able to, anything like as well as he did.
While the country goes down the pan? - The British people (and their elected politicians - spineless, dishonest puppets, the lot of them) are doing a nice job of pulling the chain without any help from royalty....


----------



## doctor Bob (9 Apr 2021)

surely this subject can't be binary as well!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Apr 2021)

I wonder if the D of E had any oilstones?


----------



## D_W (9 Apr 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> I suspect 99.9% of the population know who he is. Boasting about ignorance ................. your a strange one.
> 
> I rather liked the old boy (HRH), I do like Jacob as well, cracks me up from time to time.



we know who he is even here in the states, because eventually someone always says "we always hear about the queen, but who is the king?"

He seemed like a wonderful fellow. The comments above about living like royals are right - I wouldn't want that structure and scrutiny around every second of my life.


----------



## Jacob (9 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I wonder if the D of E had any oilstones?


Not if he lived in the Channel Islands.


----------



## Bm101 (9 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Which one is he then? I can't keep track of these royals.


Give it a rest Jacob. I feel nothing about his death if I'm honest, but feigning ignorance of who he was is as risible as all that public wailing and howling after Diana died by a small section of the public.

Got nothing to say then say nothing. While I'm certainly no royalist, far from it, and feel no loss I understand that others might and respect that.
Anyway, have a cackle if you think you're raising hackles. Honestly though, you're not. It's just a bit desperate.


----------



## TRITON (9 Apr 2021)

> I'm fundraising for The Big Walk 2020.


I'll pop something in soon as I get my paypal details sorted out(need to update some banking details)
Not used them but have Centerpoint. That oasis of hope in a sea of fear and cold.


----------



## 1steven (9 Apr 2021)

Garno said:


> Very sad day, Prince Phillip the Queen's husband has sadly passed away.
> 
> R.I.P Prince Phillip


A man with a sense of duty, service and a World War Two veteran RIP


----------



## gregmcateer (9 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> He seemed like a wonderful fellow. The comments above about living like royals are right - I wouldn't want that structure and scrutiny around every second of my life.



I wouldn't want to live like that either, but the howls of derision from much of the British press when Harry and Meghan felt they couldn't stay in the royal bubble would indicate a little bit of double standards.


----------



## paulrbarnard (9 Apr 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> I wouldn't want to live like that either, but the howls of derision from much of the British press when Harry and Meghan felt they couldn't stay in the royal bubble would indicate a little bit of double standards.


Hardly comparable.


----------



## JohnPW (9 Apr 2021)

Err..he chose that life, and could've walked away if he didn't like it.

Same goes for all the other royals, even those born into it could've stayed out of he public eye and lived a private life if they wanted to.


----------



## Vann (9 Apr 2021)

RIP DoE.

Vann.


----------



## Garno (9 Apr 2021)

JohnPW said:


> Err..he chose that life, and could've walked away if he didn't like it.
> 
> Same goes for all the other royals, even those born into it could've stayed out of he public eye and lived a private life if they wanted to.



Perhaps, just perhaps he stayed doing what he did because he loved the queen so much


----------



## fixit45 (9 Apr 2021)

Jacob I wonder if you have done anything good in your life. You sound like a loser who begrudges anyone who has achieved something any praise for it.
But that is only to be expected. One day in the future you will wake up and think what have I got for my life and realise that you spent that time criticising
everyone else you forgot do anything useful.


----------



## Chris152 (9 Apr 2021)

fixit45 said:


> Jacob I wonder if you have done anything good in your life. You sound like a loser who begrudges anyone who has achieved something any praise for it.
> But that is only to be expected. One day in the future you will wake up and think what have I got for my life and realise that you spent that time criticising
> everyone else you forgot do anything useful.


why would you assume you know anything about what good Jacob's done in his life? bizarre.

Garno's post is an expression of sadness at a man's death, i share that.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Apr 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> I wouldn't want to live like that either, but the howls of derision from much of the British press when Harry and Meghan felt they couldn't stay in the royal bubble would indicate a little bit of double standards.


Harry and Meagain wanted out but still wanted the benefits of being in. Had they just walked away they wouldn't have attracted the opprobrium.


----------



## dizjasta (9 Apr 2021)

It may be sad for the royal family that an elder has died but many families in this country suffer the same lose and get on with it.
At the moment the royal family receive monies from the rest of us just short of £70,000,000 a year. Is this value for money considering they have other sources of wealth?


----------



## Jonzjob (9 Apr 2021)

I do believe that our Jaikie Baby has a mighty shoulder chip to carry around and as has been said if nowt to say then say nowt might be a good idea?

I am a Royalist and I wish our Queen and family all the best in this sad time. It has to be an incredible shock to loose your love and friend after more than 70 years of marriage.


----------



## Spectric (9 Apr 2021)

As is said often in one of those cremation adverts " No one lives for ever " Being given a title does not obscure you from the reaper, one day he will find you it is just something unavoidable.


----------



## AdrianUK (9 Apr 2021)

If anyones husband, father, grandfather passed, would individuals be voicing opinions such? Whatever individual’s opinions are of the monarchy, they do not need airing now, when many will feel a real sense of loss. 

Views on both sides ought to be respected, however, time and a place, now is neither.


----------



## Jacob (9 Apr 2021)

fixit45 said:


> Jacob I wonder if you have done anything good in your life. You sound like a loser who begrudges anyone who has achieved something any praise for it.
> ....


Hmm, well I have been learning how to play the banjo. Would that do?


----------



## francovendee (9 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Yes, I feel particularly sorry for the Queen.
> 
> Privileged living? - I wouldn't want to live like like he did, and I doubt few others would either. Even fewer would be able to, anything like as well as he did.
> While the country goes down the pan? - The british people (and their elected politicians - spineless, dishonest puppets, the lot of them) are doing a nice job of pulling the chain without any help from royalty....


You won't get a chance to live like him, not unless you marry into the family


----------



## francovendee (9 Apr 2021)

Jonzjob said:


> I do believe that our Jaikie Baby has a mighty shoulder chip to carry around and as has been said if nowt to say then say nowt might be a good idea?
> 
> I am a Royalist and I wish our Queen and family all the best in this sad time. It has to be an incredible shock to loose your love and friend after more than 70 years of marriage.


At 99 I wouldn't think it was a shock but I'm sure some of the family are sad at his going.


----------



## dizjasta (9 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Hmm, well I have been learning how to play the banjo. Would that do?


Tenor or 5 string?


----------



## Jacob (9 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> Tenor or 5 string?


5. Mixture of clawhammer and finger styles. Keep meaning to do jazz chords and C tuning but haven't got around to it yet. Going off topic!


----------



## dizjasta (9 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> 5. Mixture of clawhammer and finger styles. Keep meaning to do jazz chords and C tuning but haven't got around to it yet. Going off topic!


Not going off topic. Maybe if we play at the funeral with my ability it will be sad news - Keep at it!


----------



## alz (9 Apr 2021)

Having been a newspaper reporter covering Aberdeenshire for local daily, covered royal events across area including Royal Deeside. The duke had great way of putting people at ease with a joke and actually interested in folk he spoke to.
Pretty informal for a royal, and could talk to anyone. Remember speaking to woman whose car had a flat tyre a few miles from Balmoral and was amazed when car stopped - out stepped the duke and helped his driver change her wheel.


----------



## Lons (9 Apr 2021)

Whether a Royalist or not, and I'm not, a person has died. OK the media are wailing like banshees and the reactions are OTT but if people feel it's fine to make jokes or criticise at this time then you have to feel sorry for them and believe that they must lead a pretty pathetic existence without an ounce of compassion.
Disrespectful IMO.


----------



## John Brown (9 Apr 2021)

I thought Jacob's comment was uncalled for, but after listening to 2 hours or so of eulogy on R4 during shedtime this afternoon, I am inclined to believe it's the sort of quip the DOE would likely have made himself.


----------



## Echo-Star (9 Apr 2021)

Did he not put the screws on the queen, to change the name house off Windsor to Mountbatten?


----------



## JimB (10 Apr 2021)

I'm sure we all have views on the monarchy, but this isn't about us. Nor is it about the crocodile tears of the media.
It's about a man who did his duty all his life. How many of us can say that?


----------



## Blackswanwood (10 Apr 2021)

He certainly would not have approved of all the “fuss”. IMHO a man who fully repaid any privilege by his service to others.


----------



## RobinBHM (10 Apr 2021)

Prince Philip was known to call himself:

"The worlds most experienced plaque unveiler"

He accepted his role as the sidekick to somebody rather important.


----------



## RobinBHM (10 Apr 2021)

Trust Jacob to bring politics into it  

Socialists are ideologically opposed to the Royal family


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

I am - and I'm sure as hell not a socialist. It's a joke that in 2021 we have to have a head of state who's there purely by virtue of being born in correct bed. Look at the .... we have coming when the queen dies.


----------



## Jameshow (10 Apr 2021)

"Refugee husband of no fixed abode" 

I liked that! 

Cheers James


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Apr 2021)

Well, he certainly did his duty, over many decades.

RIP.


----------



## pidgeonpost (10 Apr 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> He certainly would not have approved of all the “fuss”. IMHO a man who fully repaid any privilege by his service to others.


I think that's true. At least he used his position of privilege to touch the lives of ordinary people in various ways. As a kid I took part in the DofE Award scheme. Enjoyed it, though never got a gong.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I am - and I'm sure as hell not a socialist. It's a joke that in 2021 we have to have a head of state who's there purely by virtue of being born in correct bed. Look at the .... we have coming when the queen dies.


Granted, if we were designing a constitution from scratch, we probably wouldn't come up with what we have1 However, history is what it is, and the current constitutional arrangements as they've evolved over the centuries have ended up serving us quite well, all things considered.

Among all the possible alternative constitutional arrangements, I can think of two words that do lend quite a bit of weight to the desirability of what we currently have, and will have over the next few decades - President Blair.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

.


RobinBHM said:


> Trust Jacob to bring politics into it


I didn't say anything remotely political!


> Socialists are ideologically opposed to the Royal family


True, but not the "Royal Family" as such - a very varied bunch of individuals, but the institution as a whole.
To give him credit, Phil seemed to feel a bit dubious about the whole show himself.
Radio a bit dismal this morning - all those posh voices hee-hawing away.


----------



## RobinBHM (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> .
> I didn't anything remotely political!True.



I know you didn't say anything political....but that was the motivation.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Apr 2021)

I feel rather detached from it all. Then again I never met him. I'm just opposed to having an unelected head of state, an unelected second chamber and a voting system that over represents the winning party. Nothing against the royal family, just against it as an institution. They do seem to be in some sort of permanent crisis in the last couple of decades though.


----------



## RobinBHM (10 Apr 2021)

MIGNAL said:


> I feel rather detached from it all. Then again I never met him. I'm just opposed to having an unelected head of state, an unelected second chamber and a voting system that over represents the winning party. Nothing against the royal family, just against it as an institution. They do seem to be in some sort of permanent crisis in the last couple of decades though.



I feel the same, I'm rather ambivalent to the Royal family.

Part of me thinks its anachronistic and perpetuates wealth and entitlement....a bit like public schools. All that old boys network

Part of thinks I'd rather a Royal family that is a part of British culture than a president. I know people can argue a president is elected....but the choice is always between 2 rich entitled candidates.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> I can think of two words that do lend quite a bit of weight to the desirability of what we currently have, and will have over the next few decades - President Blair.


President Blair or one of forty million other adults we can choose to elect.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I feel the same, I'm rather ambivalent to the Royal family.
> 
> Part of me thinks its anachronistic and perpetuates wealth and entitlement....a bit like public schools. All that old boys network
> 
> Part of thinks I'd rather a Royal family that is a part of British culture than a president. I know people can argue a president is elected....but the choice is always between 2 rich entitled candidates.


It's all that wasted wealth - £88 billion by some accounts, including vast acreages of land and rented property. Very sad news The Queen's *net worth* fell to $460 million in 2020.


----------



## shed9 (10 Apr 2021)

fixit45 said:


> Jacob I wonder if you have done anything good in your life. You sound like a loser who begrudges anyone who has achieved something any praise for it.
> But that is only to be expected. One day in the future you will wake up and think what have I got for my life and realise that you spent that time criticising
> everyone else you forgot do anything useful.


WOW, a lot to unpack from those winning words. Can I suggest you take up the Banjo as a way of self-improvement?

Just people expressing indifference, indifference to a man born into royalty, married into further royalty who lived most of his life in a palace and died at the age of 99 in a castle.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Granted, if we were designing a constitution from scratch, we probably wouldn't come up with what we have1 However, history is what it is, and the current constitutional arrangements as they've evolved over the centuries have ended up serving us quite well, all things considered.
> 
> Among all the possible alternative constitutional arrangements, I can think of two words that do lend quite a bit of weight to the desirability of what we currently have, and will have over the next few decades - President Blair.


 Or President Gavin Williamson


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

I wonder whether Meagain will allow Harry home for the funeral?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Or President Gavin Williamson


Or President Abbott. Or president Lammy.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Or President Abbott. Or president Lammy.


Or President Phil Pascoe


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Or President Phil Pascoe


To be fair, that one doesn't sound too bad.

Doubt he'd want the job, though - he's got more sense.


----------



## Vann (10 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> ...Socialists are ideologically opposed to the Royal family


No wonder I was a mixed up kid - I'm a socialist and a royalist. 

It can't have been too much of a surprise, at 99. But nonetheless a little sad.

My daughter is working towards her Duke of Edinburgh bronze - so I guess he's left his mark. 

Vann.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

shed9 said:


> WOW, a lot to unpack from those winning words. Can I suggest you take up the Banjo as a way of self-improvement?
> ....


Does anybody know the chords for "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam"?


----------



## Spectric (10 Apr 2021)

Is it really sad news that someone who has lived to 99 years old and has had a very busy life dies, it should just be a celebration of achievement because at that age every day was a bonus and at what point are you no longer really living. It is far sader when someone in their youth dies of cancer who has only just started out in life and had so much time in front of them.


----------



## J-G (10 Apr 2021)

Echo-Star said:


> Did he not put the screws on the queen, to change the name house off Windsor to Mountbatten?


No - the suggestion came from the Queen to the Privy Council in 1947 when Prince Philip renounced his Greek ancestry and became naturalised. It wasn't to change the name of the 'House' it was only in respect of the SURNAME to be used by any family member who needed to use a surname.

The name of the Royal house is still - and will remain - the House of Windsor.


----------



## J-G (10 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I am - and I'm sure as hell not a socialist.


RobinBHM didn't say that you had to be a socialist to be anti Royal but that if you were a socialist then by definition you are also anti Royal - which makes sense.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> RobinBHM didn't say that you had to be a socialist to be anti Royal but that if you were a socialist then by definition you are also anti Royal - which makes sense.


Not really. Socialism is about wealth distribution more than anything. They could still carry on prancing about with crowns and things and giving themselves titles, in a more egalitarian society. But perhaps not gold crowns covered in precious stones - plain brass looks nice polished up a bit.


----------



## niemeyjt (10 Apr 2021)

I am happy for everyone to pour out their feelings of grief - but I object to every TV and Radio channel then broadcasting it. Did we really need simultaneous broadcasts across multiple channels? Why was no one allowed to listen or watch anything else?

It seems BBC has had so many complaints it has had to set up a dedicated page to handle them: Death of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - too much coverage on BBC TV | Contact the BBC


----------



## J-G (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Socialism is about wealth distribution more than anything


That may well be the ideal but the reality is simple jealousy.


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not really. Socialism is about wealth distribution more than anything. They could still carry on prancing about with crowns and things and giving themselves titles, in a more egalitarian society. But perhaps not gold crowns covered in precious stones - plain brass looks nice polished up a bit.



The interesting thing about it is that there's always a group of proponents who wants to be in control, and they always distribute more of the wealth to themselves and get less than transparent about distributing it to others. 

Sort of like people say a democracy or a capitalist democracy is about no barriers to entry and a fair market for all. 

In both cases, someone is always selling a brochure that looks better than the real product.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's all that wasted wealth - £88 billion by some accounts, including vast acreages of land and rented property. Very sad news The Queen's *net worth* fell to $460 million in 2020.


Except of course it's not wasted is it - wealth is being conserved, not destroyed. Besides, in this new world we're in, every penny of hard (foreign) currency is ever more precious. The royals bring in millions of foreign tourists directly and indirectly - although once they've been here they probably won't want to come again (because of the overpriced tawdriness of everything here).


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> That may well be the ideal but the reality is simple jealousy.


 Yes I know. I don't _really_ want a slightly better retirement pension, or better health care of the old etc etc
The underprivileged everywhere should just pull themselves together and grin and bear it. They wouldn't need an NHS if they lived healthier lives and stopped eating chips.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> RobinBHM didn't say that you had to be a socialist to be anti Royal but that if you were a socialist then by definition you are also anti Royal - which makes sense.


I know a few who aren't, just as I know some very right wing people who are. I know right wing people who are against a death penalty and left wing people who are for it - these things always seem to me to be a curious way of ascertaining where you are on the political spectrum.

The Political Compass is interesting. I'm just left wing according to that ............ some people might dispute that ............


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Except of course it's not wasted is it - wealth is being conserved, not destroyed. Besides, in this new world we're in, every penny of hard (foreign) currency is ever more precious. The royals bring in millions of foreign tourists directly and indirectly - although once they've been here they probably won't want to come again (because of the overpriced tawdriness of everything here).


Conserved wealth is only of worth to those who have access to it.
I doubt royalty is a profitable enterprise - do we have any figures?


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Conserved wealth is only worth anything to those who have access to it.
> I doubt royalty is a profitable enterprise - do we have any figures?


Yes, and we all have access to much/most of it already


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Conserved wealth is only worth anything to those who have access to it.
> I doubt royalty is a profitable enterprise - do we have any figures?


It's not (just) about numbers is it? Or do you refer to your children as "cost centres"?  Possibly, "comrade"?!


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Yes, and we all have access to much/most of it already


You think we should have a smaller NHS or less spending on education?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

I fancy a staycation in Windsor Castle - where do I book?


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> It's not (just) about numbers is it? Or do you refer to your children as "cost centres"?  Possibly, "comrade"?!


It's very largely about numbers - money, property and the cost of a good life for all.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I fancy a staycation in Windsor Castle - where do I book?


It's free just wander in and say you'd like to try on a crown or two.
Say Woody2Shoes sent you.


----------



## Chris152 (10 Apr 2021)

8 days of mourning? I'd say the govt might be over-playing its hand.








Britain enters a national mourning period for Prince Philip – here’s what it means


National mourning will last until 8am on the day after the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral which will take place at 3pm on Saturday April 17




www.telegraph.co.uk




ps Interestingly, the Telegraph took the '8 days' out of its title for the article.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I fancy a staycation in Windsor Castle - where do I book?


I expect you couldn't afford it
I've sung in, and had a guided tour of St George's Chapel (I'm not a royal), and much of the castle is normally open to the public - as for Windsor great park - it's a fantastic place (providing valuable ecosystem services to us all) anyone can visit.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's very largely about numbers - money, property and the cost of a good life for all.


I think you'll find that the royal estates provide all sorts of good things for ordinary people.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> You think we should have a smaller NHS or less spending on education?


I think that the NHS and education have been funded by, and will continue to be funded by, taxation and public borrowing as ever was.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> I think that the NHS and education have been funded by, and will continue to be funded by, taxation and public borrowing as ever was.


As will royalty apparently "taxpayers in the United Kingdom are paying more money than ever for the *Royal Family*. The latest Sovereign Grant accounts show that the *monarchy cost* £69.4 million in 2020"


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> As will royalty apparently "taxpayers in the United Kingdom are paying more money than ever for the *Royal Family*. The latest Sovereign Grant accounts show that the *monarchy cost* £69.4 million in 2020"


OK, so what was that money actually spent on do you suppose? Goods and services provided by British people for British people, in large part - salaries for policemen/cooks/gardeners/conservators/ratcatchers/electricians/historians/accountants etc etc Do you want to put all these good people on the dole?


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> OK, so what was that money actually spent on do you suppose? Goods and services provided by British people for British people, in large part - salaries for policemen/cooks/gardeners/conservators/ratcatchers/electricians/historians/accountants etc etc Do you want to put all these good people on the dole?


They don't provide goods and services for the british people.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> They don't provide goods and services for the british people.


Who don't?


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes I know. I don't _really_ want a slightly better retirement pension, or better health care of the old etc etc
> The underprivileged everywhere should just pull themselves together and grin and bear it. They wouldn't need an NHS if they lived healthier lives and stopped eating chips.



Tell me a socialist country that's truly socialist. Cuba? Would you like to use them for an example? The had an easy time (though not particularly free for anyone there, nor was there more wealth around than sort of necessities plus liquor to keep everyone quiet) while they could get $8MM a day from the soviets. 

Didn't work that well post-soviet. 

Or a country that's very socialist and I'll check the median income and disposable income. 

If we don't just cherry pick one country to look at, but rather use the average from each group, the socialist group doesn't fare well. 

Here in the states, if you actually want a pension and health care, etc, all you need to do is track down a trade job. But you have to show up - nobody is just going to put it there for you. The idea that there's a huge group of people stuck by capitalist force working at the dollar store and being in debt so someone can ride on a yacht...not very accurate. 

Being in the bottom 10% in the states, though, is no party until you get to a low enough bracket that everything is essentially provided to you for free (but the rule is if you're in that group, you can't do anything gainful to threaten your ability to stay there -e.g., if you manage to make it on to disability for one reason or another, the last thing you'd want to do is get caught doing any side work).


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Who don't?



They  the straw people!!


----------



## houtslager (10 Apr 2021)

As an Army veteran who has met a few of the royal household , and been spoken too by HRH Phil the Greek, he was very anti BS and all sort of high nosed snobbery, mush a lads lad, a true innovator in the royal house and imho his greatest " gift" to the world was the DoE scheme got my silver and then joined the army so never had the time to go for the gold much to me dissapointment.
But, getting back to the op - a sad day for Her maj and the rest of the family and to the friends of HRH. The country as a whole imho will be sad too but life goes on for the rest of us muck rakers bills to pay and furinture to make,
Karl


----------



## Steve Beck (10 Apr 2021)

Farewell to a fellow Navy man. From a US Navy veteran. He always seemed to be a steady, honorable and honest man.


----------



## Allejo (10 Apr 2021)

I quit


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

I've got a new hobby. There have been more people telling everyone they quit lately and that they're not interested in this or that. I'm going to start following such things so I can compile odds.


----------



## dizjasta (10 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> No - the suggestion came from the Queen to the Privy Council in 1947 when Prince Philip renounced his Greek ancestry and became naturalised. It wasn't to change the name of the 'House' it was only in respect of the SURNAME to be used by any family member who needed to use a surname.
> 
> The name of the Royal house is still - and will remain - the House of Windsor.


The House of Windsor is the title for most of the royals. In 1960 the Queen and Prince decided to allow their offspring/descendants to use the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor".
In 1947 when the Prince married his cousin he was known as Philip Mountbatten.
The Mountbatten name came about when Germany came second in WW1. At the time a German family called Battenberg decided their interests would be improved by an subtle name change.
I wonder if Philip's union has introduced some element of inbreeding that may explain the families troubles over the last 2 generations.


----------



## shed9 (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not really. Socialism is about wealth distribution more than anything.





J-G said:


> That may well be the ideal but the reality is *simple* *jealousy*.


The reality is far from simple jealousy and to label it as such is woefully lacking in understanding and societal empathy.


----------



## J-G (10 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> ...In 1947 when the Prince married his cousin ...


That is incorrect, they were in fact THIRD cousins - sharing a Great Great Grandparent -- Queen Victoria - who really was a first Cousin to Prince Albert. --- Oh, and marrying a cousin is not considered 'inbreeding'

Mountbatten was not a 'subtle name-change' it is a simple Anglicisation of the name, 'Berg' being the German for mountain. The Battenbergs in Germany did not become Mountbattens.


----------



## dizjasta (10 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> OK, so what was that money actually spent on do you suppose? Goods and services provided by British people for British people, in large part - salaries for policemen/cooks/gardeners/conservators/ratcatchers/electricians/historians/accountants etc etc Do you want to put all these good people on the dole?


The Civil List is paid without regard to financial need and seems to avoid any "means testing". Most State Benefits are subject to detailed verification. Why not introduce legislation to verify need and avoid tax payer's money going into some royal back pocket.


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

Sorry to hear the news, and you have to feel for the queen must be a big blow to her. Already fed up with the press and their habit of wheeling anyone who so much as changed the oil on his car out for their view. I think it reached an all time low with Diana when some paper had an interview with her colonic irrigationist, not sure I would want to know what 'insight' they might have provided !


----------



## dizjasta (10 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> That is incorrect, they were in fact THIRD cousins - sharing a Great Great Grandparent -- Queen Victoria - who really was a first Cousin to Prince Albert. --- Oh, and marrying a cousin is not considered 'inbreeding'
> 
> Mountbatten was not a 'subtle name-change' it is a simple Anglicisation of the name, 'Berg' being the German for mountain. The Battenbergs in Germany did not become Mountbattens.


As far as I can see COUSINS are COUSINS and are related. An attempt has been made to explain the antics and questionable actions of royal family members. The view presented was intended as a sympathetic excuse for theirs actions that have been reported by press and others. Other royal families have experienced upsets with degrees of inbreeding giving rise to unfortunate consequences.
Can you throw any light on reasons why a normal family would anglicise their name to produce a subtle name change?


----------



## Spectric (10 Apr 2021)

Whilst you have been contemplating about the future of the monarcy you may not have noticed the sun is out and your woodworking beckons, not so easy for me as I have managed to jar the old back so doing a bit of hobbling and finding it hard to use my workbench.


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> It may be sad for the royal family that an elder has died but many families in this country suffer the same lose and get on with it.
> At the moment the royal family receive monies from the rest of us just short of £70,000,000 a year. Is this value for money considering they have other sources of wealth?


How much tourist revenue do you suppose they generate ? I think if you disregard all other considerations and just look at it from a purely fiscal point of view they are good value for money.


----------



## dizjasta (10 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> How much tourist revenue do you suppose they generate ? I think if you disregard all other considerations and just look at it from a purely fiscal point of view they are good value for money.


The amount of money that tax payers contribute to maintaining the bank accounts of royals is great. They control financial assets which are considerable. If an assessment of their value needs to be understood why not revoke the Civil List payments and allow any interested people to make monetary donations to the royal family.


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Tell me a socialist country that's truly socialist. Cuba? Would you like to use them for an example? The had an easy time (though not particularly free for anyone there, nor was there more wealth around than sort of necessities plus liquor to keep everyone quiet) while they could get $8MM a day from the soviets.
> 
> Didn't work that well post-soviet.
> 
> ...


And try voicing negative views of the comrade leader in say Putin's Russia for example, Novichok anyone?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Apr 2021)

Whether supported or not, there are very good economic arguments which justify £70m (~£1 per head) spent each year:

Pre covid in 2019, 41m foreign tourists visited the UK and spent £28.4bn - the monarchy is a major part of UK history and heritage and what may attract visitors.
the Queen is head of state in 16 countries (incl Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and through the Commonwealth (54 nations) the UK can exert global influence well beyound its actual size.
By contrast £70m will buy you ~2 miles of motorway or ~400 yards of HS2 rail project. No contest really.

I am somewhat ambivalent about the monarchy as part of the UK democratic process - it seems to have little to contribute. But the monarchy and its fairly trivial cost are unquestionably a force for good (randy andy excepted!!) and the UK.


----------



## WilyWelshman (10 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> The amount of money that tax payers contribute to maintaining the bank accounts of royals is great. They control financial assets which are considerable. If an assessment of their value needs to be understood why not revoke the Civil List payments and allow any interested people to make monetary donations to the royal family.



If they are given the Crown Estates back, they won't need anyone's donations


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Whether supported or not, there are very good economic arguments which justify £70m (~£1 per head) spent each year:
> 
> Pre covid in 2019, 41m foreign tourists visited the UK and spent £28.4bn - the monarchy is a major part of UK history and heritage and what may attract visitors.
> the Queen is head of state in 16 countries (incl Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and through the Commonwealth (54 nations) the UK can exert global influence well beyound its actual size.
> ...


Hear hear. Like it or not the Royals are a bit of a USP for Britain.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

I worked in the licensed and hotel trade for decades. Never once did I ever speak to anyone who had come to this Country to see a royal palace, personality or ceremony. Anyone who thinks they are value for money should read Norman Fowler's "And What Do You Do?"


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

WilyWelshman said:


> If they are given the Crown Estates back, they won't need anyone's donations


Only if they promise to give them back to the people their ancestors stole them from.


----------



## MadMental (10 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I wonder if the D of E had any oilstones?


I want his lathe


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Tell me a socialist country that's truly socialist. Cuba? Would you like to use them for an example? The had an easy time (though not particularly free for anyone there, nor was there more wealth around than sort of necessities plus liquor to keep everyone quiet) while they could get $8MM a day from the soviets.
> 
> Didn't work that well post-soviet.
> 
> ...


Most modern states are largely socialist in that they provide extensively for the welfare of the population, financed by taxation. Even the USA does, though in a very inefficient, cack handed and expensive way. Even Cuba has better, more efficient, health and welfare provision. Every year half a million Americans are bankrupted by medical bills, which doesn't account for the even large number who put up with and endure ill health as they can't afford to pay. 








'I live on the street now': how Americans fall into medical bankruptcy


Having health insurance is often not enough to save Americans from massive debts when serious illness strikes




www.theguardian.com




.


> Here in the states, if you actually want a pension and health care, etc, all you need to do is track down a trade job. But you have to show up - nobody is just going to put it there for you. The idea that there's a huge group of people stuck by capitalist force working at the dollar store and being in debt so someone can ride on a yacht...not very accurate.


Nonsense. America has a vast population of low paid or jobless.








Largest Increase In U.S. Poverty Recorded In 2020


More than 2 million children under the age of 17 have fallen into poverty over the past six months.




www.forbes.com




Not surprising really as the whole wealth of America depended on slavery to start with, and it's still with them in one way or another - most conspicuously in terms of prison workfare - the largest prison population in the world - sent out to work. Was established way back following "abolition"of slavery, as a substitute.
There are pages written about it and it can't be denied.
Beyond cheap labor: can prison work programs benefit inmates?
And of course there's a huge army of illegal workers which is ignored as a good deal of their economy depends on them. Trump's wall wasn't intended to succeed!








How many undocumented immigrants are in the United States and who are they?


Elaine Kamarck and Christine Stenglein outline recent trends in illegal immigration to the U.S. and explain why accurately determining the size of the America’s undocumented population is so diffic…




www.brookings.edu


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Apr 2021)

*Although the ownership of some property can be traced back to Edward the Confessor, the estate as a whole essentially dates from 1066. After the Norman Conquest, all the land belonged to William "in right of The Crown" because he was King*

So I am unclear who specifically the the Crown Estate was taken from, and totally unclear who one would give it back to. 

An enthusiasm for remedying the theft 940 years ago could perhaps be applied to more recent incidents to see if there is a way to make the process work - give the good 'ol US back to the native americans, the land of Oz back to the aborigines, etc

A daft proposition!


----------



## fixit45 (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not really. Socialism is about wealth distribution more than anything. They could still carry on prancing about with crowns and things and giving themselves titles, in a more egalitarian society. But perhaps not gold crowns covered in precious stones - plain brass looks nice polished up a bit.


Putin is doing alright for himself, not a lot of wealth distribution though!!!


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> And try voicing negative views of the comrade leader in say Putin's Russia for example, Novichok anyone?



I tend to be pretty vocal. I think in China or Russia, I'd probably give myself a list of things that I wouldn't say and probably try to curate my brain from even thinking because who knows what you'll say when you're drunk, under anesthesia for an unexpected operation, etc. The interesting thing, though, is that in a lot of these countries (cuba before soviet aid stopped ,etc), the citizens are like a forum fanboy group for the leaders. The minority stays quiet and the citizens rip anyone who objects to the leadership, especially if it's someone from another country. 

There's an interesting documentary here in the states with castro - castro had a legitimate point that the US was not showing the full picture to citizens, and they would hassle him anywhere he went (this shouldn't be a surprise). Most of the citizens interviewed were happy and didn't have lots of wants, and any time defectors who had gone to miami were encountered or were thinking of defecting, the crowd of adherents was almost intolerable. Really over the top. 

As time went on, the documentary went from the early 70s through after the fall of the soviets, and aid was cut off or drastically reduced. The tenor changed significantly and some of the folks who had property (vs. apartment dwellers) went very negative, talking about how the lack of resources led to everything they had being stolen constantly. This isn't sort of a one off political statement (things get stolen everywhere), but systemic across the board due to lack of resources -meaning you or I may have trouble criticizing the people doing the stealing as they may have just been trying to survive). 

The answer of what really is ethical for all of us in terms of the best governmental setup is really above my pay grade - I know the median and probably even the 25th percentile lives pretty fat in the united states. If you don't believe it, look how fat we are. The 25th percentile has two cars and goes on vacation and lives better than my grandparents ever did. But there are holes here and there (one of them being that it's extremely difficult to retire early in the states even if you otherwise have the means, because the individual insurance market is against you due to your actual expected cost of insurance, and the tax code is against you (if you have saved for retirement, you can't get unpenalized access to the money even if you retire until at least age 55 - and even then only if you've initiated another pension benefit from a certain type of plan. It's later than that for everyone else). 

But, I guarantee if I were single and had access to my retirement savings right now (at age 44) I'd be happy to live a spartan life and retire because we, on average, pay the price on work hours. Not like south korea or japan, but we probably work on average 5-10 hours more than the average brit, and one of the reasons I post a lot is that every two hours or so, I take a break from work for 15 minutes and then get back to it. If I'm posting at 9pm or like right now on a Saturday, it's because i'm working and need a short break. I don't do a type of work that you can afford to put your head down and blitz through it - mistakes can lead to millions in misstatements and some of them would be very hard to correct. 

I think we'd all like to come up with a way that life isn't a struggle, but when we do, we find other ways to make it difficult. I think in 21 years, I've probably worked close to 70,000 hours. My parents were teachers. In 32 (they retired early), they didn't work as many hours. Being a teacher from what I can gather now isn't as easy as it was when they were teachers, though, either. The burden of documentation, work, etc, is much higher. 

I find these discussions somewhat interesting, though, as I have disdain for the hypomanics who run the rest of us through the wringer, but understand that in a different system, the same folks would make it to the top. It's like putting aggregate in a jar and shaking it - no matter what the jar is like, if you shake it for a while, everything will end up in the same order.


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Most modern states are largely socialist in that they provide extensively for the welfare of the population, financed by taxation. Even the USA does, though in a very inefficient, cack handed and expensive way. Even Cuba has better, more efficient, health and welfare provision.Nonsense. America has a vast population of low paid or jobless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The median family income in the US is about $80,000. 

As far as our social benefits here - if you become someone who is in need of them, the initiatives are there to find you (unless you don't want to be found - e.g., drug addicts in warm climates often don't want to dry out and get help). My neighbors adopted a son who is MR. He's otherwise "normal" except his IQ is below 70. Strangely enough, he can repair small engines and do some things, but you can't stand to be around him long because he can't tell the truth and there's a fair chance that at some point, he'll call the police and tell them something inaccurate and you'll get a visit.....

...OK, he's not _that_ normal. 

His wife is bipolar and bigger than any aircraft ever built in britain. The benefit system here has them covered - their food, their health care, their housing, etc. plus about $2500 a month of income. they generally get assistance to find a place to rent, fail to pay (keep the money and use it for other purposes) and move on. Benefits advised them that they would be better off divorced and cohabitating, so that's what they did. One child (of only one of the parents from a prior relationship) is normal, the other two are very delayed. They live *awfully* well. I have no idea how the guy gets away with charging to repair small engines, but perhaps things have changed. They've got a nicer car than me, but I'm allowed to keep savings and I do pay my bills. 

I wouldn't rather live in cuba under any circumstance, and thought it was interesting that their HDI is so much further behind the US despite the access to medical care and food there (which does appear to be pretty uniform). It looks like the folks with no aspirations and no property to guard or care for like it pretty well. 

Personally, i wouldn't rather live anywhere else than the US, but I *could* pretty easily live anywhere, I think. I would find work, and chop wood and carry water, just like I do here. There is no nationalist bent to my commentary - I just like accurate discussion.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> *Although the ownership of some property can be traced back to Edward the Confessor, the estate as a whole essentially dates from 1066. After the Norman Conquest, all the land belonged to William "in right of The Crown" because he was King*
> 
> So I am unclear who specifically the the Crown Estate was taken from, and totally unclear who one would give it back to.
> 
> ...


Maybe you've never heard of the clearances, or the enclosures, affecting Scotland and Ireland worst, and much of Britain: the process whereby much of the population lost their livelihoods on the land and were "dispossessed". Many were exported as indentured labour to America (another form of slavery) and/or criminalised and sent off to Australia.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

fixit45 said:


> Putin is doing alright for himself, not a lot of wealth distribution though!!!


He's just another old fashioned dictator in the style of the Tsars.
Serfdom (slavery) came to an end but the Russians never quite got socialism to work - good in parts, disastrous in others. It didn't help that they were severely blasted by WW2 with much bigger losses and more destruction than the west.
It's argued that what they had was "state capitalism" whereby the govt took over the role of the capitalist of old, without democratic control from the population. Worst of both worlds
Not too good now - a corrupt and failing state.


----------



## J-G (10 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> Can you throw any light on reasons why a normal family would anglicise their name to produce a subtle name change?


Just a quick one without research - D'Israeli became Disraeli for much less of a negative issue


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> Just a quick one without research - D'Israeli became Disraeli for much less of a negative issue


Hardly, it'd take more than dropping an apostrophe!
He would have gone for "Wilson" , or worked "Disraeli" into "Raleigh" or something, if he wanted hide his Jewish origins or just anglicise his name.
He did try to blag up his humble origins though, but obviously failed with the name change!


----------



## selectortone (10 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I wouldn't rather live in cuba under any circumstance, and thought it was interesting that their HDI is so much further behind the US despite the access to medical care and food there (which does appear to be pretty uniform). It looks like the folks with no aspirations and no property to guard or care for like it pretty well.


I have to admit a sneaking admiration for Cuba. Despite everything the most powerful nation on this planet has done over the last 60 years to crush them they keep hanging in there. One of the many things I learned about Americans during my many visits to the USA is their massively skewed right-wing view of that little island to their south that continues to defy them. They just HATE that.


----------



## Auldfart2010 (10 Apr 2021)

i feel for the queen, a big loss for her, probably. As a person, I didn't like him and I hope he is the last of his ilk. The monarchy is hopefully moving closer to the people they serve.


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Maybe you've never heard of the clearances, or the enclosures, affecting Scotland and Ireland worst, and much of Britain: the process whereby much of the population lost their livelihoods on the land and were "dispossessed". Many were exported as indentured labour to America (another form of slavery) and/or criminalised and sent off to Australia.


distasteful as it may be to us today, throughout history the big guys have taken what they wanted from the littler guys. Relatively recent stuff.Like the British and other European empires could be reversed, as the original owners were well known. The further back you go the more difficult it becomes. The idea that you could somehow return the crown estates to the descendants of the original owners is absurd. Or would you have them owned by the state, in which case how is that any more fair. Some time in the distant past someone stuck something in the ground where your house now stands and said "this is mine", and then probably fought off anyone else who wanted it. Not very socialist, but that is how it worked. So does that make you any less the owner of your house?


----------



## J-G (10 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> As far as I can see COUSINS are COUSINS and are related.


Then you are unaware of the concepts of consanguinity. If you were able to search back far enough you would find that we are related through Charlemagne.





By the time you get to 2nd cousin the 'kinship' is tenuous to say the least.


----------



## J-G (10 Apr 2021)

Auldfart2010 said:


> i feel for the queen, a big loss for her, probably. As a person, I didn't like him and I hope he is the last of his ilk. The monarchy is hopefully moving closer to the people they serve.


HRH Prince Philip probably did more for that cause than any one in history !! It seems that you might benefit from even a little reading of his life story.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> ...... Or would you have them owned by the state, in which case how is that any more fair. .....


It would make it fair of course; just nationalise the whole lot, but I suppose the blow could be softened by gradual taxation - increase in inheritance tax, more controls on landlord/tenant/rent deals etc.


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

selectortone said:


> I have to admit a sneaking admiration for Cuba. Despite everything the most powerful nation on this planet has done over the last 60 years to crush them they keep hanging in there. One of the many things I learned about Americans during my many visits to the USA is their massively skewed right-wing view of that little island to their south that continues to defy them. They just HATE that.



I can give you an actual view on it here - if you're in miami with defectors or estranged relatives, you'll get a pretty negative view of cuba. 

The rest of us, indifference except we wish we could get the cigars and go there on a vacation. The generation who feared cuba as a place that the soviet union would use to stage an invasion is mostly gone (but just as is always the case, I'm sure the government message was and still is curated, and you can find hangers on here. If you go to an old enough cohort, you can still find people who don't like japanese stuff because they were alive during WWII). 

what cuba does seem to be good for is if you'd like to live in a 1br apartment, have food security and maybe a half working TV to watch soccer games and the national teams, then you're good to go. If you want to do anything else, good luck.


----------



## dizjasta (10 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> Then you are unaware of the concepts of consanguinity. If you were able to search back far enough you would find that we are related through Charlemagne.
> View attachment 108040
> 
> By the time you get to 2nd cousin the 'kinship' is tenuous to say the least.


May be so but the most important revelation is that we are all related to Jacob of this parish. Brilliant detective work.


----------



## Chris152 (10 Apr 2021)

just watched bbc news. 20 mins (?) about Philip all dressed in black, quick romp through covid deaths (approaching 130k) and touched on other bits of news, then back to Philip. it does grate a little, i wonder what the balance of public perception is.


----------



## paulrbarnard (10 Apr 2021)

Allejo said:


> I quit


Smoking?


----------



## selectortone (10 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I can give you an actual view on it here - if you're in miami with defectors or estranged relatives, you'll get a pretty negative view of cuba.
> 
> The rest of us, indifference except we wish we could get the cigars and go there on a vacation. The generation who feared cuba as a place that the soviet union would use to stage an invasion is mostly gone (but just as is always the case, I'm sure the government message was and still is curated, and you can find hangers on here. If you go to an old enough cohort, you can still find people who don't like japanese stuff because they were alive during WWII).
> 
> what cuba does seem to be good for is if you'd like to live in a 1br apartment, have food security and maybe a half working TV to watch soccer games and the national teams, then you're good to go. If you want to do anything else, good luck.



I can give you an actual view too. One of my best friends spent two weeks there with his wife on holiday (vacation) a couple of years ago. They went on a package where they stayed with local families, which is a common way to enjoy a holiday there (unless you're American...)

Nowhere was off limits, they got to see the whole island and really enjoyed their stay. Food was basic but very tasty, accomodation basic but clean. They never felt uneasy or threatened. (Try saying that if you go off the tourist track in LA or Chicago or anywhere else in the USA)

The poverty there is real, heartbreaking and pretty much entirely down to US embargos. Yeah, I know, nowhere's perfect. But he says it was the most memorable holiday he's ever had.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> ....
> 
> what cuba does seem to be good for is if you'd like to live in a 1br apartment, have food security and maybe a half working TV to watch soccer games and the national teams, then you're good to go. If you want to do anything else, good luck.


What USA is bad for is that millions of people have to live in a 1br apartment or trailer park, have no food security and very poor health care, plus the risk of getting shot by gun freaks, or killed by cops if you happen to be black.
Odd thing about USA is that something like 8 million people are in poverty, which is approaching the size of the 11million population of Cuba, non of whom are in poverty.


----------



## doctor Bob (10 Apr 2021)

Thread becoming another political thread, for f**ck sake moderators do your jobs.


----------



## D_W (10 Apr 2021)

Fantasy, Jacob. If you're that poor in the states, you get free food, subsidized housing and free health care and likely declaration of disability income later in life that converts to permanent lifetime income. 

Unskilled workers who only just have the means to care for themselves have it tougher. Being a felon here is pretty limiting, too.


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> It would make it fair of course; just nationalise the whole lot, but I suppose the blow could be softened by gradual taxation - increase in inheritance tax, more controls on landlord/tenant/rent deals etc.


Ah yes, Nationalise everything. Tried that before. Seem to remember it was a bit of a balls up. Loads of companies subsidised by the taxpayer to make junk that no one wanted to buy, or to produce stuff they may have wanted, but at a price they couldn't afford.


----------



## dizjasta (10 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> May be so but the most important revelation is that we are all related to Jacob of this parish. Brilliant detective work.


This is not a political thread it amounts to accolade for a staunch forum supporter.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> Ah yes, Nationalise everything. Tried that before. Seem to remember it was a bit of a balls up. Loads of companies subsidised by the taxpayer to make junk that no one wanted to buy, or to produce stuff they may have wanted, but at a price they couldn't afford.


Not everything - just as necessary. When was it a balls up by the way? What exactly did you have in mind?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

fixit45 said:


> Putin is doing alright for himself, not a lot of wealth distribution though!!!


Russia is about as socialist as China.


----------



## francovendee (10 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> Ah yes, Nationalise everything. Tried that before. Seem to remember it was a bit of a balls up. Loads of companies subsidised by the taxpayer to make junk that no one wanted to buy, or to produce stuff they may have wanted, but at a price they couldn't afford.


When was this?


----------



## Jameshow (10 Apr 2021)

MadMental said:


> I want his lathe


I would like his no5 1/2 please!! 

Cheers James


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

MadMental said:


> I want his lathe


Probably an inherited Holtzapffel.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (10 Apr 2021)

I took @Phil Pascoe 's political compass test, and I am as centrist as they come -which was a suprise. Not so surprising were my very libertarian tendencies.

I think the royal family is a fabulous idea, but for a less obvious reason than you might expect. Without Her Maj, Tony Blair would have lived at Buckingham Palace, and _genuinely thought he was entitled to it. _Teresa May, Gordon Brown, even (or especially) Boris the same. Therefore, heads of state should never be politicians, because they really don't need any more encouragement than we already give them.

I also think that there is a lot of enthusiasm from above to split the population into small groups, all of whom are at each other's throats. Left/right, brexit/remain, unionist/republican, royalist/independent or whatever they want to label themselves as this week, and so on. Jacob does enjoy a good fight, but he is somewhat a product of this thinking: thesis, antithesis and synthesis, or problem, reaction, solution if you prefer the more modern version. United we stand, divided we are sheep to be shorn and then slaughtered. Is the wall - to - wall coverage of the dead duke just because there isn't any other news? Or is it a means to engender even more division and hatred? Are the media en mass incompetent or complicit? BBC sees ratings PLUMMET after ‘over the top’ Prince Philip death coverage


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not everything - just as necessary. When was it a balls up by the way? What exactly did you have in mind?


British Leyland, NCB, British Rail etc etc.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I took @Phil Pascoe 's political compass test, and I am as centrist as they come -which was a suprise. Not so surprising were my very libertarian tendencies.


I've done it three times over a few years, my reading varies from 2 squares left, one down to one square left, two down. I appear to be nearly perfectly balanced.


----------



## TRITON (10 Apr 2021)

> It seems that you might benefit from even a little reading of his life story.


Which bit ?, the slated by the tabloids or the whisperings from servants and courtiers ?


----------



## Fergie 307 (10 Apr 2021)

francovendee said:


> When was this?


1970's, strikes all the time especially in nationalised industries. Any effort at reform, modernisation or improvements in quality or productivity usually met with cries of all out brothers. So we spent years subsidising the likes of British Leyland to the tune of millions, to produce outdated rubbish that no one wanted. Even when they came up with something genuinely innovative like the Range Rover, it was ruined by appallingly bad build quality. The simple fact is that governments are rubbish at running businesses, and shouldn't try and do so. When you have Labour governments, reliant on union funding it's even worse, as they are powerless to take on the union's over these issues. Unfortunately we had some really hard line Marxist types in the Unions at the time, Red Robbo at Leyland being a good example. The nonsense that went on with demarcation and so on was ridiculous. It was at around this time that Henry Ford said that if it had still been up to him he would have shut their UK operation down and never come back, all down to disruption by militant unions. It wasn't all bad, the strike by female Ford workers over equality issues was an great example of how unions should intervene in behalf of workers. Unfortunately there was far to much industrial action that was just politically motivated and ultimately enormously damaging.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2021)

I had the misfortune for six years of going to school by train under BR - never since have I ever seen such a bunch of self righteous, entitled, bone idle jobsworths.


----------



## J-G (11 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> Which bit ?, the slated by the tabloids or the whisperings from servants and courtiers ?


You can forget the musings of anti-royal disgruntled people and start with a rescue by the Royal Navy at 18 months, loss of all contact with immediate family at 8 years then look at his naval career that ought to take you at least a couple of months to do it justice.

The fact that you appear to be in the first category sited will probably mean that you have no interest in the reality though.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> British Leyland, NCB, British Rail etc etc.


They existed at all because of the failures of the businesses which preceded them.
Should have been a lot better financed but there's always been a British prejudice against state control.
As a result we have no coal industry, virtually no motor industry and Europe's most expensive railways. They are replaced by imports and/or managed by foreign businesses often state controlled themselves but by foreign states with more imagination than poor old Britain.
Also British tendency to blame those at the bottom for failure at the top. The motor industry was hopelessly mismanaged and underinvested before the big strikes, coal was shut down as a political decision - the miners were fighting to keep the business going, rail was underinvested and the subsequent privatisation very problematic.








Almost All British Train Lines Are Now Owned By Other EU Countries


Britain’s West Coast mainline, one of the last to be fully run by a UK company, has been acquired by a Trenitalia consortium. Privatisation has seen rail pass to foreign state railways.




www.forbes.com


----------



## francovendee (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> 1970's, strikes all the time especially in nationalised industries. Any effort at reform, modernisation or improvements in quality or productivity usually met with cries of all out brothers. So we spent years subsidising the likes of British Leyland to the tune of millions, to produce outdated rubbish that no one wanted. Even when they came up with something genuinely innovative like the Range Rover, it was ruined by appallingly bad build quality. The simple fact is that governments are rubbish at running businesses, and shouldn't try and do so. When you have Labour governments, reliant on union funding it's even worse, as they are powerless to take on the union's over these issues. Unfortunately we had some really hard line Marxist types in the Unions at the time, Red Robbo at Leyland being a good example. The nonsense that went on with demarcation and so on was ridiculous. It was at around this time that Henry Ford said that if it had still been up to him he would have shut their UK operation down and never come back, all down to disruption by militant unions. It wasn't all bad, the strike by female Ford workers over equality issues was an great example of how unions should intervene in behalf of workers. Unfortunately there was far to much industrial action that was just politically motivated and ultimately enormously damaging.


Do you think this would happen again now that unions are no longer closed shops and union power has been weakened considerably by Maggie?
I know that railways still get huge subsidies and the Government has had to hand out 'sweeteners' to car manufacturers to convince them to set up and stay in the UK.
I personally think a mix of private and public ownership is the best way.
You do have to recognise when an industry is no longer viable, steel may be a case in point.


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

The car and bike industries were both victims of complacency. Take Land Rover as an example. A fine vehicle when launched but as long as people kept buying them they saw no need to develop the product, so a series 3 from the late seventies was still essentially the same vehicle as launched in 1948. They were even still using the Rover engine with side exhaust valves for goodness sake. When Toyota came along with the Landcruiser it was like a spaceship by comparison. Bikes were the same Triumph were selling bikes in the 1970's which were essentially pre war designs. Along came Honda with bikes like the 750 four and put them out of business. 
Have to disagree about coal. The problem there was that the miners union view was that a pit should only be closed if the coal had run out. Whilst there was still coal in the ground miners should continue to dig it out, regardless of the economics. So industries like British steel, also nationalised, had to buy British coal. This left the government in a predicament. If the likes of British Steel had to pay what the coal actually cost then their own products would be uncompetitive, and they would go under. The answer was to subsidise the extraction of coal from completely uneconomic pits, with the long suffering tax payer picking up the bill. Thatcher sought to change this and proposed shutting down a small number of the most uneconomic pits, a perfectly reasonable idea. The union refused point blank to entertain any such notion and so we had the miners strike. I have no doubt Scargill entered into this confidently expecting the government to cave in, after all this is what had always happened before. Thatcher was not going to cave in and the irony is that many more pits closed as a result of the strike than had ever originally been proposed. And let's not forget how those miners who didn't agree with the strike and continued to work were branded scabs, and both they and their families were intimidated, threatened and physically attacked by their 'comrades'. Trades Unions at their very worst, and just the sort of thing Thatcher sought to put and end to by introducing such sinister, filthy capitalist ideas as secret ballots to vote for or against industrial action. Interesting that the vast majority of supposedly oppressive anti union legislation introduced by the Tories at this time wasn't repealed by Blair when he got in. Equally interesting that Corbyn did propose to repeal much of it, God knows what chaos might have resulted then.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> ..... The answer was to subsidise the extraction of coal from completely uneconomic pits, ......


Which of course makes them economic, but in another part of the economy.
Just nit picking here - too much text for me this early in the morning!


----------



## John Brown (11 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I've got a new hobby. There have been more people telling everyone they quit lately and that they're not interested in this or that. I'm going to start following such things so I can compile odds.


You did it yourself, in spades, a while back. Proclaimed you were "out" and then continued to post the usual three thousand word essays.


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

francovendee said:


> Do you think this would happen again now that unions are no longer closed shops and union power has been weakened considerably by Maggie?
> I know that railways still get huge subsidies and the Government has had to hand out 'sweeteners' to car manufacturers to convince them to set up and stay in the UK.
> I personally think a mix of private and public ownership is the best way.
> You do have to recognise when an industry is no longer viable, steel may be a case in point.


I think you are absolutely right. It was only by curbing the union's that we were able to attract companies like Nissan and Honda to set up here. I do believe that certain industries are so vital that they should be state controlled, but only the basic utilities like water, gas and elecricity. In other cases you can certainly make the case that something is so beneficial that it should be subsidised, public transport being a good example. We spend, or used to at any rate, a great deal of time in Spain and Holland. Both have great train bus and tram services, clean efficient and cheap. All are subsidised but provide a valuable service and reduce traffic and pollution. None would probably be viable if the end user had to pick up the full cost, but the benefits to society as a whole make subsidising them perfectly sensible. Unfortunately here we have never been particularly good at this, and in part this may be down to an inherent aversion to state control of things. I think with the ever increasing threat of climate change we have to get our public transport system sorted out, so that it is a viable and affordable way for people to get about. In Spain we go everywhere by bus, I honestly can't remember the last time we drove anywhere. Here I can't remember the last time I used a bus, because there never seems to be one to where I want to go, and the cost of trains is prohibitive. If you want to go any great distance it's cheaper to fly, how daft is that?


----------



## AJB Temple (11 Apr 2021)

This has now morphed into a full on political thread.


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Which of course makes them economic, but in another part of the economy.
> Just nit picking here - too much text for me this early in the morning!


How do you work that out? If the government pays say £60 to get a ton of coal out of the ground, then sells it for £30 how is that by any stretch of the imagination economic?


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

AJB Temple said:


> This has now morphed into a full on political thread.


Agreed, and apologies for my part, we have got a bit off topic haven't we. Suspect HRH might have found that quite amusing in itself, God bless him.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> How do you work that out? If the government pays say £60 to get a ton of coal out of the ground, then sells it for £30 how is that by any stretch of the imagination economic?


1 British steel needed it 2 it paid the wages of the miners 3 kept pits open, and so on
There's more to profit than a balance sheet. The UKs biggest and most successful industry, the NHS, makes no profit at all!


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> I suspect 99.9% of the population know who he is. Boasting about ignorance ................. your a strange one.
> 
> I rather liked the old boy (HRH), I do like Jacob as well, cracks me up from time to time.



is Jacob part of the Royal Family too?


----------



## Doug B (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> is Jacob part of the Royal Family too?


well according to a previous post we all are,


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> is Jacob part of the Royal Family too?


No, but if I was King I'd sort everybody out in no time!


----------



## Doug B (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> How do you work that out? If the government pays say £60 to get a ton of coal out of the ground, then sells it for £30 how is that by any stretch of the imagination economic?


Isn’t that basically what China are doing now? Seems to be working for them at enormous cost to the climate


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> Sad ?. Condolences to the family and friends but hardly anything to be personally sad about.
> 
> 99 years of privileged living, while the country goes down the pan. Keep their heads down and maybe the daily mail wont run stories on their wayward children.



I don't consider it privileged living at all.
Sometimes I wonder if folk could actually get out of bed on a daily basis and do what they do.


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> No, but if I was King I'd sort everybody out in no time!



as bonkers as you may think it is,
you are the kind of person that today could make to to No10.


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> as bonkers as you may think it is,
> you are the kind of person that today could make to to No10.



He said with a smile on his face


----------



## Doug B (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> as bonkers as you may think it is,
> you are the kind of person that today could make to to No10.


Go for it @Jacob you’re not too old look at Biden if he can get elected at 78 you’ve every chance  if you pledge to reduce the duty on beer you’ve got my vote


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> I don't consider it privileged living at all.
> Sometimes I wonder if folk could actually get out of bed on a daily basis and do what they do.



I often wonder if they could get out of bed in a morning and do what I do (and countless thousands of others). Someone earlier stated that DoE had served his country, done his duty and how many on here can say that? (or words to that effect). That's complete and utter nonsense, ridiculously condescending. Every single day people 'do their duty' and serve their fellow human beings. It's nearly always without fame, wealth or thanks, often poorly paid.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Doug B said:


> Go for it @Jacob you’re not too old look at Biden if he can get elected at 78 you’ve every chance  if you pledge to reduce the duty on beer you’ve got my vote


Right ho I'll look into it! Coincidentally, free beer for the workers was my first thought. Could be a winner.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Which of course makes them economic, but in another part of the economy.
> Just nit picking here - too much text for me this early in the morning!


So subsidising something makes it economic? Why not just subsidise everything. Job done.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> ......
> There's more to profit than a balance sheet. ........


Exactly what I was telling you about the monarchy! You _*were*_ listening after all!


----------



## Woody2Shoes (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Right ho I'll look into it! Coincidentally, free beer for the workers was my first thought. Could be a winner.


Socialism is all about promises to give away 'free stuff' (having confiscated it from others first, mind)...


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> 1 British steel needed it 2 it paid the wages of the miners 3 kept pits open, and so on
> There's more to profit than a balance sheet. The UKs biggest and most successful industry, the NHS, makes no profit at all!


Not sure The NHS is a fair comparison. This falls into the category I was talking about earlier, where the benefits to society outweigh the cost. Not sure you can make the same argument in favour of mining. When the price of tin collapsed the industry in Cornwall largely shut down as the cost of getting the stuff out of the ground exceeded its commercial value. That is the harsh economic reality. The only reason many pits remained open for so long was because the whole operation was subsidised by the taxpayer. I have no objection to that in principle, but there has to be a limit. The alternative is to continue to pay people to produce something nobody wants, the butter mountain springs to mind. This is just plain daft. The longer you put off the inevitable, the harder the fall tends to be, coal being a good example. If you subscribe to the view that these industries should be kept going no matter what to safeguard the jobs involved where does that end? Are you going to have a government subsidised factory making, I don't know, steam engines?


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> So subsidising something makes it economic? Why not just subsidise everything. Job done.


Good idea but it's not that simple. Subsidising something may make a profit, but somewhere else, not necessarily on a balance sheet either e.g. NHS makes an enormous profit in terms of the value of peoples' health.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Socialism is all about promises to give away 'free stuff' (having confiscated it from others first, mind)...


True (ish) but taking from those who have too much and giving it to those who have too little.
Like Robin Hood, but without the bows and arrows (all being well!)


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Apr 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Socialism is all about promises to give away 'free stuff' (having confiscated it from others first, mind)...



How did those 'others' get it in the first place? Given that land is power and wealth I guess you know the rest.
My guess is that it was 'confiscated' at the end of a sword or gun.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

MIGNAL said:


> How did those 'others' get it in the first place? Given that land is power and wealth I guess you know the rest.
> My guess is that it was 'confiscated' at the end of a sword or gun.


There is an argument that people should be able to own what they created for themselves.
I agree to some extent: nobody created the land hence nobody should own it.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> True (ish) but taking from those who have too much and giving it to those who have too little.
> Like Robin Hood, but without the bows and arrows (all being well!)





No bows and arrows!


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

MIGNAL said:


> How did those 'others' get it in the first place? Given that land is power and wealth I guess you know the rest.
> My guess is that it was 'confiscated' at the end of a sword or gun.





MIGNAL said:


> How did those 'others' get it in the first place? Given that land is power and wealth I guess you know the rest.
> My guess is that it was 'confiscated' at the end of a sword or gun.


A classic example was the oil industry in Russia. Pre revolution they were producing something approaching three quarters of the entire world supply. Post revolution the commissars turned up and took everything into state ownership. Some of the business owners, Nobel for example, were allowed to leave, only because the workers rallied round and protected him. Most were put up against a wall and shot as enemies of the people. those who survived were offered no compensation and were lucky to get out with the clothes on their back. the party hierarchy helped themselves to the assets of the former owners, and new managers were appointed based primarily in their political reliability. All production bonuses and other worker incentives were abolished as being unpatriotic. The result? Within a few years production had slumped by over 90 % and the whole industry was in chaos. The Communiststs were forced to swallow their principles and engage the filthy capitalists in the form of Esso and Shell to sort the mess out, which they did.


----------



## D_W (11 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> You did it yourself, in spades, a while back. Proclaimed you were "out" and then continued to post the usual three thousand word essays.



Yes, as all of us do. My new favorite is to say "I've had enough! I'm leaving until I change my mind!", though the guy here earlier threatening to quit with 14 total posts. I mean, what will the board do without those.


----------



## D_W (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> I don't consider it privileged living at all.
> Sometimes I wonder if folk could actually get out of bed on a daily basis and do what they do.



I would never be able to. At some point, some of us would like to have bad manners and tell everyone to f.o.. not doable there. Can you imagine the cell phone videos?


----------



## D_W (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> They existed at all because of the failures of the businesses which preceded them.
> Should have been a lot better financed but there's always been a British prejudice against state control.
> As a result we have no coal industry, virtually no motor industry and Europe's most expensive railways. They are replaced by imports and/or managed by foreign businesses often state controlled themselves but by foreign states with more imagination than poor old Britain.
> Also British tendency to blame those at the bottom for failure at the top. The motor industry was hopelessly mismanaged and underinvested before the big strikes, coal was shut down as a political decision - the miners were fighting to keep the business going, rail was underinvested and the subsequent privatisation very problematic.
> ...



Reality is tough, huh? When labor is at the table with people pleasing business leadership, the conclusion is always the same.


----------



## Doug B (11 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I would never be able to. At some point, some of us would like to have bad manners and tell everyone to f.o.. not doable there. Can you imagine the cell phone videos?


He did & the videos are out there along with his racist quotes


----------



## D_W (11 Apr 2021)

How long ago are these videos?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Apr 2021)

Ownership of land is an expression of power now embedded in law.

Today, certainly in the UK, we think we own our land or houses. This is only because there is a body of law which protects, and allows us to enforce, our legal rights. 

We do not have absolute control as evidenced by planning regulations, listed building laws, and even compulsory purchase if the benefit to society as a whole exceeds our personal "ownership" rights.

Not many centuries ago (in the UK) land was wholly within the gift of those with power - monarchs, lords, robber barons etc. An individual right to occupy and use as they saw fit was entirely dependant on patronage.

Any reference to land "ownership" which predates ~16th century probably relates to land occupied through ultimately royal patronage. A feudal system allowed the lord of the manor to rent or demand a tithe as they saw fit. 

Those more highly skilled were able to expect more of their "lord" and the "lords" would no doubt recognise the benefits to them of skilled wheelwrights, carpenters, stone masons etc etc. 

In summary nothing much has changed in thousands of years - those with power control land use. 

In the UK this was largely tribal before the Romans, a mess during the dark ages, followed by the Normans, and as parliamentary democracy took hold from the 14th C onwards, elected politicians.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think you are absolutely right. It was only by curbing the union's that we were able to attract companies like Nissan and Honda to set up here. .....


Nissan and Honda kept the UK unions happy with better wages , conditions and career prospects. They broke with the British tradition of over paid and underperforming management.


----------



## selectortone (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> British Leyland, NCB, British Rail etc etc.


With respect, it wasn't quite as black-and-white as that.

Back in the 80s and 90s I worked for companies supplying process control equipment to heavy industries in the UK, including back then several that were state owned - electricity generation (CEGB), water and sewage treatment (the Water Authorities), British Gas at al. The people I met - process engineers, instrument engineers, control room operators, maintenance staff - were, by and large, conscientious and proud to be involved in the common good of providing essential services. When these industries started to be sold off the light went out of their eyes as the common good became secondary to the bottom line. Savage cuts, redundancies, questionable safety practices.

I have a good friend who was a supervisor at British Telecomm. I saw the light go out of his eyes. Someone please convince me that what we have now from BT is better than the old days.

Now, I'm no communist. I uderstand the benefits of the stock market and the implications that has on my pensions. But those essential industries are now top heavy with bean counters and admin people whose prime goal is to make a profit for their shareholders. Fine, in a regulated stock market. But when you read about what went on before the 2008 crash - selling sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, packageing up those mortgages into arcane instruments and selling them into the market, then betting on them to fail. Our essential services are now at the mercy of these people.

I thank heaven the government knows that selling off what's left of the NHS would be death at the ballot box or that would be gone too. And then where would we be?


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> A classic example was the oil industry in Russia. Pre revolution they were producing something approaching three quarters of the entire world supply. Post revolution the commissars turned up and took everything into state ownership. Some of the business owners, Nobel for example, were allowed to leave, only because the workers rallied round and protected him. Most were put up against a wall and shot as enemies of the people. those who survived were offered no compensation and were lucky to get out with the clothes on their back. the party hierarchy helped themselves to the assets of the former owners, and new managers were appointed based primarily in their political reliability. All production bonuses and other worker incentives were abolished as being unpatriotic. The result? Within a few years production had slumped by over 90 % and the whole industry was in chaos. The Communiststs were forced to swallow their principles and engage the filthy capitalists in the form of Esso and Shell to sort the mess out, which they did.


They tell a different story here Black gold: How the Russian oil industry was born


----------



## ovenpaa (11 Apr 2021)

RIP Prince Philip.

I am disappointed to read so much anti royal sentiment. Prince Philip was a faithful companion to our queen for over 70 years and deserves to be remembered for who as much as what he was. Unfortunately, there are people in this life who seem to have the only goal in life to ruin or ridicule what people hold dear. The man was a force and I would prefer people to not comment if they have nothing worthwhile to say.

Has anyone noticed how it is always the minority that is most vocal?


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> In summary nothing much has changed in thousands of years - those with power control land use.



not so much today with groups like Greenpeace, and also land contamination controls that are carried out by the environmental agencies.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

ovenpaa said:


> RIP Prince Philip.
> 
> I am disappointed to read so much anti royal sentiment. Prince Philip was a faithful companion to our queen for over 70 years and deserves to be remembered for who as much as what he was. Unfortunately, there are people in this life who seem to have the only goal in life to ruin or ridicule what people hold dear. The man was a force and I would prefer people to not comment if they have nothing worthwhile to say.
> .....


I agree.
Why aren't they going on about Prince Andrew and his "little friends"?


----------



## TRITON (11 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> You can forget the musings of anti-royal disgruntled people and start with a rescue by the Royal Navy at 18 months, loss of all contact with immediate family at 8 years then look at his naval career that ought to take you at least a couple of months to do it justice.
> 
> The fact that you appear to be in the first category sited will probably mean that you have no interest in the reality though.


Am I now ?. shows how wrong you are buddy. And far from it im actually PRO royal.
Not just the income generated, which other republics can only dream of, i appreciate everything such a head of state has done to draw a country together in difficult times. In fact is was just such a system that put Britain on the world map, and such a small country too.

But thats ok, i accept your apologies, but would like to point out that having an opinion isnt testimony to being a negative one.
And I think the Royal family can look after themselves, they dont need wannabe heros to step in for them


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> They tell a different story here Black gold: How the Russian oil industry was born


As Mr M might have said, "you cannot be serious". Russia Beyond is a state sponsored propaganda outlet, you think you are going to get the truth? Some people's naivety is truly astonishing.


----------



## TRITON (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> I don't consider it privileged living at all.
> Sometimes I wonder if folk could actually get out of bed on a daily basis and do what they do.


Of course it is. Silly to suggest other.
As to getting out of bed day after day, i'd do it, as would you at such wages.
Some get out of bed day after day and do so for minimum wage.

It's not before anyone points out that I'm anti royal, but am in fact anti government.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> As Mr M might have said, "you cannot be serious". Russia Beyond is a state sponsored propaganda outlet, you think you are going to get the truth? Some people's naivety is truly astonishing.


Try this one The Turbulent History of Foreign Involvement in the Russian Oil and Gas Industry.


----------



## scotrodg (11 Apr 2021)

I remember, back in the day, when this forum was about woodworking and associated stuff.
Pretty sure the bbc are overloaded with sycophants covering this just now


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> Of course it is. Silly to suggest other.
> As to getting out of bed day after day, i'd do it, as would you at such wages.
> Some get out of bed day after day and do so for minimum wage.
> 
> It's not before anyone points out that I'm anti royal, but am in fact anti government.



But I'm not driven by money and neither are the Royals.
What you miss is that you were brought up in a different environment, as they are. To take over from them and do their job would be ridiculous.
As for working the minimum wage, that is a matter of choice and has nothing to do with being born into royalty or any class.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Apr 2021)

ovenpaa said:


> ... I would prefer people to not comment if they have nothing worthwhile to say.



You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it is of no more value than anyone else's.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> But I'm not driven by money and neither are the Royals.



Read Norman Fowler's "And What Do You Do".


----------



## D_W (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> They tell a different story here Black gold: How the Russian oil industry was born



you may have missed at the end that the industry foundered as soon as things became complicated and they had to privatize it to restore production.


----------



## scotrodg (11 Apr 2021)

"I'm not driven by money and neither are the Royals"...I have to take you at your word but suggesting the royals are not either is delusion to Olympic standards. 
They frequently have their hands out for more, frequently receive valuable gifts (check out the provenance of the queens stables) and if there is ever a suggestion of reducing the hand outs they receive, the bleating is outrageously loud. 

No disprespect meant to the queen but it's time this "institution" was very firmly parked up and told they have to pay their own way.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

scotrodg said:


> I remember, back in the day, when this forum was about woodworking and associated stuff.
> Pretty sure the bbc are overloaded with sycophants covering this just now


You don't seem to have posted anything about woodwork yourself?


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

After all that its started snowing!
Enjoy the rest of your day......


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Read Norman Fowler's "And What Do You Do".


If it's a book could it just be an opinion?


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it is of no more value than anyone else's.



I think he makes a good point to be honest.


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

scotrodg said:


> "I'm not driven by money and neither are the Royals"...I have to take you at your word but suggesting the royals are not either is delusion to Olympic standards.
> They frequently have their hands out for more, frequently receive valuable gifts (check out the provenance of the queens stables) and if there is ever a suggestion of reducing the hand outs they receive, the bleating is outrageously loud.
> 
> No disprespect meant to the queen but it's time this "institution" was very firmly parked up and told they have to pay their own way.



Thank heavens you said all that. I thought you were going to call them lazy for a moment.....
I suppose like us all you have never received, held out your hand, got anything given to you at all ever in your life?


----------



## Fergie 307 (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Try this one The Turbulent History of Foreign Involvement in the Russian Oil and Gas Industry.


This glosses over the revolution and aftermath completely. Read any of the numerous sources on the Nobel family history, or of Royal Dutch Shell and Standard Oil. In early 1920 the Soviets took Nobel's company, Branobel, into state ownership and he was expelled. The Soviets also then took all his personal assets, and those of the company. A few months later Nobel negotiated the sale of his interests in the company to Standard Oil, ESSO. This was an interesting move since according to the Soviets he no longer owned anything and so his interest in the company was essentially worthless. In reality this became the basis of the later involvement of Standard Oil in restoring the industry after the disastrous consequences of the state takeover following the revolution. Standard Oil effectively took over on condition that their interest was recognised. It was Standard oil and Royal Dutch Shell who provided the expertise to get the industry back on its feet in the lead up to the second world war, just as both companies, together with Branobel, had built it up in the first place.
Anyway, we are way off topic, and you appear to have little appetite for factual history anyway.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> If it's a book could it just be an opinion?


Read it. It's an eye opener.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> But I'm not driven by money and neither are the Royals.



The D of E's flunkies applied for an increase in his allowance for performing his public duties ................... the year after he resigned from them.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> .... and you appear to have little appetite for factual history anyway.


Completely the opposite. 
That's why I keep googling to see what turns up when people set off on a little rant! I knew absolutely FA about Russian oil industry, know a little more now! 
It is difficult to get simple objective facts though, maybe they don't exist.
No surprises if they effed it up - Russian "state capitalism" was the worst of both worlds in many ways and a million miles from western style "democratic socialism"


----------



## planesleuth (11 Apr 2021)

Old Boys Club. A chip out of the Norman Yoke inexorably welcomed. 19th May 1649.


----------



## ian33a (11 Apr 2021)

I really thought that the DoE was a bit of a twit and that the royal family, as a whole, were out of touch and misinformed. That said, I have always felt that they do a job that I couldn't do and that they bring a financial and moral benefit to the country and should not be removed or otherwise altered. Generally, if somebody is doing a job that I feel unable to do as well as they can, who am I to criticise their remuneration?

With the death of the DoE, the only thing which has changed in my mind is that the DoE actually wasn't the twit that I thought he was and that he actually contributed to the royal "brand" rather than freeloaded from it.

My other viewpoints remain as before.


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> The D of E's flunkies applied for an increase in his allowance for performing his public duties ................... the year after he resigned from them.



And rightly so when you work 20 years longer than the rest of us.


----------



## dizjasta (11 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> The D of E's flunkies applied for an increase in his allowance for performing his public duties ................... the year after he resigned from them.


To put things in perspective. At his termination of Public Duties Prince Philip received £395,000 each year.
It is estimated that at the same time his wealth amounted to 30,000,000.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> And rightly so when you work 20 years longer than the rest of us.


Yes all that grouse shooting must have really taken it out of him.


----------



## doctor Bob (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes all that grouse shooting must have really taken it out of him.



You know who he is now, well done for reading up on him.

Always amazes me how people can't stand other people having a good life. 2 days ago you didn't even know who he was. Now you seem very envious of his privileged life.
I think things work out better when you focus on your own affairs rather than those who are doing better than you.
I guess that's your type of socialism, bring everyone down to the same level of misery?


----------



## D_W (11 Apr 2021)

scotrodg said:


> I remember, back in the day, when this forum was about woodworking and associated stuff.
> Pretty sure the bbc are overloaded with sycophants covering this just now



Allow me to show you the description at the top of this off topic forum:

》For non-woodworking related topics《

Allow me to also point out that just the first woodworking subforum has more posts than this one by a wide margin.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> And rightly so when you work 20 years longer than the rest of us.


So I assume you've asked not only for a salary but also a rise a year after you've left your job?


----------



## doctor Bob (11 Apr 2021)

scotrodg said:


> I remember, back in the day, when this forum was about woodworking and associated stuff.



I remember way back (my joining date isn't correct as originally I was Senior) ..... way way way back when Jacob was funny.


----------



## Spectric (11 Apr 2021)

ovenpaa said:


> Prince Philip was a faithful companion to our queen for over 70 years


So would her Corgi's but they don't last 70 years and need constant replacements.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Apr 2021)

Dr Bob ^^^^ He's still funny. Funny peculiar, not funny haha.


----------



## J-G (11 Apr 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> ,,,when Jacob was funny.


Was that ever the case ??


----------



## Chris152 (11 Apr 2021)

Same pattern, over and over


----------



## doctor Bob (11 Apr 2021)

Chris152 said:


> Same pattern, over and over


Indeed Chris, Jacob turns a post into a socialist broadcast, I try to stop it, then you post "same pattern"


----------



## gregmcateer (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> And rightly so when you work 20 years longer than the rest of us.


Eh?
You may be in the happy position of not being motivated by money, (we have no idea of each others means or income), however I have found through life that everyone who is providing for themselves and their family tend to have at least a bit of motivation for money, unless they live in a moneyless community or are totally self sufficient. 

On your point above, many people HAVE to work long past 'normal' retirement age in order to live even a half decent life, yet mostly will not be able to negotiate a pay rise. Particularly so if they have been on minimum wage, which earlier you rather bizarrely suggested was a matter of choice.


----------



## Garno (11 Apr 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> I remember way back (my joining date isn't correct as originally I was Senior) ..... way way way back when Jacob was funny.



That's some memory you have


----------



## J-G (11 Apr 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> ... On your point above, many people HAVE to work long past 'normal' retirement age in order to live even a half decent life...


Only if they have been living most of their working life 'beyond their means' - and wish to maintain that same lifestyle.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> Only if they have been living most of their working life 'beyond their means' - and wish to maintain that same lifestyle.


Or been underpaid, made redundant, been ill, been paying too much rent, bad luck, ripped off, .....and many more possible reasons. The principle ones being low pay / job insecurity, or the poverty trap where the problems become insurmountable. Being skint is rarely a lifestyle choice
Very few wage earners earn enough to save for a meaningful pension and the state pension is one of the lowest in Europe. Brexit will help keep it that way of course


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> Eh?
> You may be in the happy position of not being motivated by money, (we have no idea of each others means or income), however I have found through life that everyone who is providing for themselves and their family tend to have at least a bit of motivation for money, unless they live in a moneyless community or are totally self sufficient.
> 
> On your point above, many people HAVE to work long past 'normal' retirement age in order to live even a half decent life, yet mostly will not be able to negotiate a pay rise. Particularly so if they have been on minimum wage, which earlier you rather bizarrely suggested was a matter of choice.


I
Everything in life is a matter of choice, more so today, and yes many people will work past retirement, but many will decide to not take their pensions because of taxation restrictions.
I know all about minimum wage workers. I also know many who progressed past that point using the opportunity as a stepping stone. I know people who asked it the company would pay their course fees if they did an accountancy course for instance. Now an accountant with the same company.
I know people who started stacking shelves at supermarkets who are now buyers, and store managers.
But I take your point.


----------



## Jacob (11 Apr 2021)

Amateur said:


> I
> Everything in life is a matter of choice,


Except things which aren't a matter of choice, of which there are very many.


----------



## D_W (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Except things which aren't a matter of choice, of which there are very many.



I don't think you'd deal well with the odds of being fine if you don't do stupid things intentionally and expect someone else to pick up the pieces for you. 

Perhaps the outcome for 5% or so would be bad, but holding them up as the average or using them for a scare story is juvenile. 

8 years old, I was playing soccer - coach threw the ball closer to the guy I was drilling against in a drill and I said "that's not fair". The guy who was a coach had a rough life, some of it was probably his fault due to the drink, but he was a good guy. He said "life ain't fair kid". My dad heard it and the rest of my life, he said "remember what coach said". 

Since then, I've seen many people who have had bad breaks, but for every one of them, I know 20 who think something that's their fault is someone else's fault. While everyone else cuts the wood and carries the water every day, they refuse to do it and or do little of it and are focused on what they don't have. They have little because they're talking about the other people who cut wood and carry water while those people do it.


----------



## Amateur (11 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Except things which aren't a matter of choice, of which there are very many.


Seems to be more choice to do nothing than something regardless today.


----------



## Jake (11 Apr 2021)

I have resolved to book immediate flights to somewhere next time a significant royal dies. Sad for his family as it is for everyone's.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Apr 2021)

Homo sapiens are competitive animals. Competition is the driver of innovation, ideas, progress and growth,

Winning the competition brings money, respect, titles, promotion, recognition, personal satisfaction. Not all are solely motivated by money.

That some individuals achieve greater wealth, influence and power is inevitable. Most eventually realise that they will never be a contender and pursue other of lifes goals - family, hobby, work-life balance etc. 

Many build small workshops, buy woodworking tools and machines, produce furniture, boxes, chess sets etc. They won't rival Chippendale or Rennie-mackintosh but find satisfaction in their hobby.

When the state pension was introduced in 1909 (~decade before DoE was born) very few lived long enough to claim it. We now typically live for ~20 years post normal retirement age.

It would be (IMHO) unfair to expect those working to fund the pensions of those retired who are still fit and able. This means that those who wish to retire early need to make their own provision.

Fortunately employment opportunities are increasingly flexible and varied - many choosing to work part time as they advance in years.

To keep on topic this is effectively what the DoE was doing. That he lived in some luxury was testament to his ability to win (over others) the affections of a future monarch. 

Do I envy him his wealth - no. I am reconciled to my relatively comfortable existence in retirement and would not have wished the continual public spotlight he endured.

Should the wealthier be taxed to provide extra for the less fortunate is a fair question. That which increases aggregate wealth for society as a whole is good. Pursuit of "fairness" is admirable but we need to explicitly understand the cost. Negative emotions - envy, anger, etc - are very poor reasons.


----------



## Jacob (12 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Homo sapiens are competitive animals. Competition is the driver of innovation, ideas, progress and growth,
> 
> Winning the competition brings money, respect, titles, promotion, recognition, personal satisfaction. Not all are solely motivated by money.


99% of human achievement is through co-operation not competition. Competition has its role but has become a rather lazy right-wing trope - as a panacea a failure for most purposes


> ....... That which increases aggregate wealth for society as a whole is good. .....


Not if it isn't available for society as a whole.
For instance, the astronomical wealth accumulated by the slave trade didn't do much for the slaves. Would a Venn diagram help?


> Pursuit of "fairness" is admirable but we need to explicitly understand the cost.


Luckily the cost is low. Negative in fact. Taking assets from where they are not needed costs nothing, using them where they _are_ needed is self evidently profitable.
Modern society involves a good deal of redistribution, basically through tax and spend, and the benefits are huge. Taxation drives economies. What goes around comes around.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Apr 2021)

Taxation drives economies?
You have to have something to tax ............. and that's not things like the NHS which are wholly paid from taxes on industries and people that actually make money. Someone has to make the money in the first place, and many would argue that easy come easy go, much of the income from taxation is wasted. In your socialist utopia many of the biggest earners would move out of the Country - that's been seen under Labour governments before.


----------



## Lard (12 Apr 2021)




----------



## Jacob (12 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Taxation drives economies?
> You have to have something to tax ............. ....


What goes around comes around. 
Have you ever played Monopoly? The game slows/stops when too few players own too much "wealth". It starts again when it's shared out again.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Apr 2021)

It's not real, Jacob.


----------



## Jacob (12 Apr 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> It's not real, Jacob.


It was designed to show how the economy works. It does it very well. Started out as "The Landlords Game".
The Landlord's Game - Wikipedia 
Economics is much simpler than economists want you to think.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Apr 2021)

There's clearly no need for prize winning top economists supported by multi £m supercomputers running complex economic and financial models.

Just buy the Chancellor a few sets of Waddingtons (now Hasbros) finest game (Monopoly). He can play with friends and with the insights gained launch radical new initiatives.

Trouble is, Monopoly was invented and intended as a competitive game with winners and losers. It was not a demonstration of socialist ideals wherein all competitors are still going many hours or days later.


----------



## Lons (12 Apr 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> Indeed Chris, Jacob turns a post into a socialist broadcast, I try to stop it, then you post "same pattern"


Well Bob it's only a few days ago that you suggested "the mods do their job" and that post seemed to disappear/was deleted. ( as no doubt will this if spotted. . It could still be there of course hidden somewhere among the dross.
I agree with you 100% btw it hasn't taken the usual culprit long to turn several threads into political campaigning following his reinstatement from exile.


----------



## D_W (12 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> It was designed to show how the economy works. It does it very well. Started out as "The Landlords Game".
> The Landlord's Game - Wikipedia
> Economics is much simpler than economists want you to think.



Did you notice in the game, they don't encourage people to land on the "take from others with nothing in return" square?


----------



## Jacob (12 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There's clearly no need for prize winning top economists supported by multi £m supercomputers running complex economic and financial models.
> 
> Just buy the Chancellor a few sets of Waddingtons (now Hasbros) finest game (Monopoly). He can play with friends and with the insights gained launch radical new initiatives.
> 
> Trouble is, Monopoly was invented and intended as a competitive game with winners and losers. It was not a demonstration of socialist ideals wherein all competitors are still going many hours or days later.


Close! 
It demonstrates that left to market forces there are only ever a few winners but many losers. And in fact the game tends to stop, and fights break out etc. The economy ceases to function.
To get it going again you have to restart the game by sharing it all out again.
In real economies, rather than stopping and starting (which does happen of course) the preferred option is a steady recirculation of wealth to keep the thing going steadily. There has to be a countervailing force against the inevitable drift of wealth ever upwards ("Trickle up theory"). 
It has to be brought down again, to keep the wheels turning.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Apr 2021)

Rather than prove communism doesn't work for umpty-third time, how about addressing where money comes from, who has the power to create it or destroy it, and who gets first bite at the pie when creating it. Changing the rules for our insane monetary system would be far more equitable than just fleecing all the rich people and then wondering why everyone is equally poor, all of a sudden (excluding the Animal Farm pigs who are always more equal than others - aren't they, Jacob?)


----------



## Jacob (12 Apr 2021)

Lons said:


> Well Bob it's only a few days ago that you suggested "the mods do their job" and that post seemed to disappear/was deleted. ( as no doubt will this if spotted. . It could still be there of course hidden somewhere among the dross.
> I agree with you 100% btw it hasn't taken the usual culprit long to turn several threads into political campaigning following his reinstatement from exile.


These threads run because people are interested in them. 
There's a new thread on cycling going on - do you object to that too?
If you don't want threads to be interesting why don't you start one of your own? Think of an uninteresting topic; "breakfast cereals"? Plenty to choose from!


----------



## J-G (12 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> These threads run because people are interested in them.


Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm essentially a-political.

The only reason I post at all is to counter your left wing, anti-establishment, stupidity and correct inaccuracies.


----------



## Jacob (12 Apr 2021)

J-G said:


> Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm essentially a-political.
> 
> The only reason I post at all is to counter your left wing, anti-establishment, stupidity and correct inaccuracies.


Can't have it both ways, either you are apolitical or you aren't!


----------



## D_W (12 Apr 2021)

Jacob, I'm curious as to why you've never tried to move to one of the societies that's more to your political liking.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Apr 2021)

You think Venezuela would have him?


----------



## gregmcateer (12 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> How long ago are these videos?



Can't see what's the relevance of how long ago they were


----------



## rafezetter (12 Apr 2021)

*Wanders in to the chat room... read 3 anti royal blah blah they are scumbags posts, and walks out.*

I'll leave you to it.


----------



## TRITON (12 Apr 2021)

Daily mail is running this like theres no tomorrow. A 15 page souvenir spread.
Doesnt seem to matter that the Prince hated Murdoch, and probably thought the daily mail home to the scum of the earth.
Bit of perspective on that and everyone's favourite manbaby


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Apr 2021)

Lons said:


> Well Bob it's only a few days ago that you suggested "the mods do their job" and that post seemed to disappear/was deleted. ( as no doubt will this if spotted. . It could still be there of course hidden somewhere among the dross.
> I agree with you 100% btw it hasn't taken the usual culprit long to turn several threads into political campaigning following his reinstatement from exile.



No still there page 7 


doctor Bob said:


> Thread becoming another political thread, for f**ck sake moderators do your jobs.



I think the moderators have given up, seems like a party political forum these days. They pounce on saying Fuuck and boolloxs and ignore all politic posts.
It will dogwankerpineapplebolloxs it up for everyone.


----------



## Garno (12 Apr 2021)

I'm going to request that this gets locked


----------



## Jacob (12 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Rather than prove communism doesn't work for umpty-third time, how about addressing where money comes from, who has the power to create it or destroy it, and who gets first bite at the pie when creating it. Changing the rules for our insane monetary system would be far more equitable than just fleecing all the rich people and then wondering why everyone is equally poor, all of a sudden (excluding the Animal Farm pigs who are always more equal than others - aren't they, Jacob?)


By all means expand on the topic! How would you radically change the monetary system without disturbing thr filthy rich?
Not sure what communism has to do with it though I realise that a lot of rightists think anything to the left of Jacob Rees Mogadon is communist!


----------



## dizjasta (12 Apr 2021)

This forum gives a notification as follows - *"For non-woodworking related topics - Yes I know it's scary though but there is life outside woodworking".*
This statement should be sufficient to allow for the views and comments of any forum member to be provided without criticism for presentation but the content may be disputed.
Are we going down the road that we are all equal but some are more equal that others?


----------



## Garno (12 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> This forum gives a notification as follows - *"For non-woodworking related topics - Yes I know it's scary though but there is life outside woodworking".*
> This statement should be sufficient to allow for the views and comments of any forum member to be provided without criticism for presentation but the content may be disputed.
> Are we going down the road that we are all equal but some are more equal that others?



Not going down any route, I started this thread as a mark of respect for Prince Phillip, it has now morphed well beyond what it was intended for. As the author it is well within my rights here to request it close. If it does not close due to me asking then it will or should be closed due to it turning into a political discussion/fight that is against the forum rules, unless that is we are going down the road of rules only applying to some and not to others.


----------



## Chris152 (12 Apr 2021)

rafezetter said:


> *Wanders in to the chat room... read 3 anti royal blah blah they are scumbags posts, and walks out.*
> 
> I'll leave you to it.


Seems to happening a lot more these days - make confrontational statement, then put fingers in ears and make a loud humming sound.
Maybe I've missed a post or two, but I've not read anyone calling anyone scum. Clearly there are significant differences, but pretending everything's so polarised when it isn't is a new British thing, it seems.


----------



## dizjasta (12 Apr 2021)

Garno said:


> Not going down any route, I started this thread as a mark of respect for Prince Phillip, it has now morphed well beyond what it was intended for. As the author it is well within my rights here to request it close. If it does not close due to me asking then it will or should be closed due to it turning into a political discussion/fight that is against the forum rules, unless that is we are going down the road of rules only applying to some and not to others.


In a very similar manner to yourself I have respect for the Prince. Perhaps this respect could be maintained if you as the author generated and additional post with a slightly modified title incorporating your sadness and requesting others with a similar views to post their dismay at his passing but make it clear that any comments extraneous to the prince's death must not be included. I will certainly make my feelings known in such a post.


----------



## Garno (12 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> In a very similar manner to yourself I have respect for the Prince. Perhaps this respect could be maintained if you as the author generated and additional post with a slightly modified title incorporating your sadness and requesting others with a similar views to post their dismay at his passing but make it clear that any comments extraneous to the prince's death must not be included. I will certainly make my feelings known in such a post.



So it's my fault that this thread has deteriorated to what it is. I should not have to tell members not to break any of the forum rules if they answer any posts. I have stated why the thread was made and my reasons for wanting it closed. You and I are also not showing respect by bickering over the rights and wrongs about titles and wording of threads. In future how would you like me to title things? "Please do not break forum rules whilst answering" followed by the title or title first?


----------



## Noel (12 Apr 2021)

Garno said:


> Not going down any route, I started this thread as a mark of respect for Prince Phillip, it has now morphed well beyond what it was intended for. As the author it is well within my rights here to request it close. If it does not close due to me asking then it will or should be closed due to it turning into a political discussion/fight that is against the forum rules, unless that is we are going down the road of rules only applying to some and not to others.




Hi Gary, appreciate that you started the thread and it's transitioned into a wider discussion, that's what happens in any OT section that I frequent and indeed for most topics here, no matter how innocuous or otherwise.
Small point- once you let go of the send button and the first post glides softly into the ether, it's gone. No control, no rights, no nothing.

For some of the wider membership I should also mention that the IGNORE function works really well. A member can ignore another member's post or IGNORE a thread, dead easy.

I think this thread probably is on it's last legs.


----------



## dizjasta (12 Apr 2021)

Garno said:


> So it's my fault that this thread has deteriorated to what it is. I should not have to tell members not to break any of the forum rules if they answer any posts. I have stated why the thread was made and my reasons for wanting it closed. You and I are also not showing respect by bickering over the rights and wrongs about titles and wording of threads. In future how would you like me to title things? "Please do not break forum rules whilst answering" followed by the title or title first?


At no point would I consider that you are at fault in the manner in which this topic has moved. You presented it to an audience which will have mixed views concerning our society and it would seem that at the very least you had an inkling that your sentiments would not appeal to everyone. At around the post 12 the emphasis of discussion was mostly devoid of interest in Prince Philip. The rest is history, but it is better to be mindful that the suppression of free speech and a person's views is just how totalitarianism thrives.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Apr 2021)

Noel said:


> Hi Gary, appreciate that you started the thread and it's transitioned into a wider discussion, that's what happens in any OT section that I frequent and indeed for most topics here, no matter how innocuous or otherwise.
> Small point- once you let go of the send button and the first post glides softly into the ether, it's gone. No control, no rights, no nothing.
> 
> For some of the wider membership I should also mention that the IGNORE function works really well. A member can ignore another member's post or IGNORE a thread, dead easy.
> ...



Can we just clear up a point, So now politics is allowed in any threads, or threads of your choice?
The rules on discussing politics are some times applied and sometimes not.
Can we now call someone a jumped up pompous wally or not?


----------



## Droogs (12 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There's clearly no need for prize winning top economists supported by multi £m supercomputers running complex economic and financial models.
> 
> Just buy the Chancellor a few sets of Waddingtons (now Hasbros) finest game (Monopoly). He can play with friends and with the insights gained launch radical new initiatives.
> 
> Trouble is, Monopoly was invented and intended as a competitive game with winners and losers. It was not a demonstration of socialist ideals wherein all competitors are still going many hours or days later.


Actually it was a demonstration of socialist ideals wherein all competitors are still going many hours or days later.









The secret history of Monopoly: the capitalist board game’s leftwing origins


In 1903, a leftwing feminist called Lizzy Magie patented the board game that we now know as Monopoly – but she never gets the credit. Now a new book aims to put that right




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Droogs (12 Apr 2021)

dizjasta said:


> The rest is history, but it is better to be mindful that the suppression of free speech and a person's views is just how totalitarianism thrives.


And exactly the thing the late DoE strived to help defeat


----------



## D_W (12 Apr 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> Can't see what's the relevance of how long ago they were



It's not a matter of getting a free pass, but people talk differently and accept things differently now than they did 45 years ago.


----------



## Jameshow (12 Apr 2021)

Garno said:


> Not going down any route, I started this thread as a mark of respect for Prince Phillip, it has now morphed well beyond what it was intended for. As the author it is well within my rights here to request it close. If it does not close due to me asking then it will or should be closed due to it turning into a political discussion/fight that is against the forum rules, unless that is we are going down the road of rules only applying to some and not to others.


It is sad that we cannot show our appreciation and memories of a senior royal and elder statesman of our nation without it turning into a party political point scoring exercise.....! 

Sad indeed. 

Cheers James


----------



## Chippyjoe (12 Apr 2021)

This thread has turned into a joke, and people wonder why they leave this forum.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Apr 2021)

@Garno
As the original poster and owner of this thread, I think it quite reasonable for you to want it to stay on topic. Ordinarily this wouldn't be quite such an issue, but we are talking here about a death and honouring the monarchy. I think an apology is in order. Everyone else can make their own decisions, but to my mind, any statement that didn't reflect the tone of the original post shouldn't have been made. That includes my contribution. I apologise.

It's somewhat akin to going to a funeral and telling everyone what an evil, miserable ar $e the deceased was - you _can_ do it, but don't expect to be respected for your performance.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Apr 2021)

I have managed to find this description of the Landlords game:

*The set had rules for two different games, anti-monopolist and a monopolist. The anti-monopolist rules reward all during wealth creation. A win in the anti-monopolist, or Single Tax version and later called by Magie as "Prosperity Game", was when the player having the lowest monetary amount has double his original stake.*

So it seems the game was set up to prove a political point - that by sharing wealth prosperity for society as a whole is created. It does acknowledge the concept of "winner" although it is the one who at the end has least money, but twice what they started with.

This all seems quite bizarre to me - although perhaps I lack the insights of others in this thread!

The issue of whether society benefits more through through capitalist or socialist policies is a fair question - although I struggle to find a major country which has sustainably in the long term benefitted from pure socialist policies - most have failed.


----------



## shed9 (12 Apr 2021)

I blame the parents.......


----------



## Noel (12 Apr 2021)

And it's time.

And for those few who keep forgetting, Ignore function on posts and threads is dead easy to set up. Try it.


----------

