June 2019, News stories.

   

i can understand it from way back when ya only had bbc 1 and funky bbc2 but these days with the overload of streaming etc etc,i dunno.6 music is my go to radio station but if i had to pay extra for it,would not listen. And i do think there should be a discount rate for some of the older folk.

Still is a discount for some over-75s, but it used to be a blanket, free of charge for all over 75s and was promised to be kept so by this Tory government, but no shock that has become another broken promise. It has flaws, but it's criminally underappreciated in this country.

I suggest you check again about the powers "The Crown" still has.

And from your own link;

The Crown has powers but only in theory and all the royal family are effectively on welfare anyway.The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy.  My initial point was that if any politician tried to sidestep Parliament it would be dangerous step.Speaker has said it won't happen and it won't.In fact it was just an empty threat in the first place by Raab.


https://www.businessinsider.com/weirdest-powers-queen-elizabeth-ii-british-sovereign-prerogative-swans-dolphins-2015-5?r=US&IR=T

This might give you a better idea of the Queen's real powers.

Newsnight covered the story.Maitliss remarked.."I didn't realise the BBC had become the cultured arm of welfare"....what a feckin's cheek..sneering at welfare claimants and in the same breath implying over 75's getting free licences are welfare claimants.

I emailed them and put them straight...get their reply in a few days. Anyhow it's clearly collusion between the BBC and their mates in the Tory party.

"Letterbox" Johnson running scared again.Ducks the leadership debate on Channel 4. Jeremy Corbyn must be relishing facing "Piccaninnies" Johnson at the despatch box. The Channel 4 debate is a tame affair by any standards. No real probing questions. If Johnson hasn't enough confidence to stand up and justify himself, what F'ing chance has he against the EU or indeed any other. Trump with have him dancing to the US tune within weeks.

Johnson's new name..Coward Boris.

BoJo can go & f**k himself the self righteous pompous pr**k..

The Crown has powers but only in theory and all the royal family are effectively on welfare anyway.The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy.  My initial point was that if any politician tried to sidestep Parliament it would be dangerous step.Speaker has said it won't happen and it won't.In fact it was just an empty threat in the first place by Raab.


https://www.businessinsider.com/weirdest-powers-queen-elizabeth-ii-british-sovereign-prerogative-swans-dolphins-2015-5?r=US&IR=T

This might give you a better idea of the Queen's real powers.

Check again.
The "Crown" can veto any new law that interferes with its "business activities".

I'm fully aware of the Crown's actual powers, but it seems you aren't, as you continue to argue against yourself.

Check again.
The "Crown" can veto any new law that interferes with its "business activities".

I'm fully aware of the Crown's actual powers, but it seems you aren't, as you continue to argue against yourself.

I know what the Crown can do but in reality its only theoretically possible. The Queen acts on instruction from the Prime minister. She is only effectively a figurehead. Any constitutional expert or scholar will tell you that.

Again my initial reference was in regard to the UK being a Parliamentary Democracy. You for some vague notion claim the Queen has some say in Parliamentary matters. She has no say in matters relating to who runs the country - the electorate decides that. The Crown - King or Queen merely rubber stamp laws Etc coming thru Parliament.

I know what the Crown can do but in reality its only theoretically possible. The Queen acts on instruction from the Prime minister. She is only effectively a figurehead. Any constitutional expert or scholar will tell you that.

Again my initial reference was in regard to the UK being a Parliamentary Democracy. You for some vague notion claim the Queen has some say in Parliamentary matters. She has no say in matters relating to who runs the country - the electorate decides that. The Crown - King or Queen merely rubber stamp laws Etc coming thru Parliament.

OK, which part of this are you not understanding?
It s not "theoretical"; the "Crown" exercises it's right to veto laws which affect it's interests, every single year. It happens constantly. Laws are shelved every year because the "Crown" vetoes them.
Previous FOI requests have shown this.

This is not something open to debate.
It is a fact.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742221/Queen_s_and_prince_s_consent_pamphlet__September_2018___accessible_.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

On top of this, there are NO records about how many laws have been vetoed before reaching Parliament, but it is suspected to run into the hundreds.

So, now that I have proved it, can you please stop going round in f**king circles trying to disprove a proven fact.

OK, which part of this are you not understanding?
It s not "theoretical"; the "Crown" exercises it's right to veto laws which affect it's interests, every single year. It happens constantly. Laws are shelved every year because the "Crown" vetoes them.
Previous FOI requests have shown this.

This is not something open to debate.
It is a fact.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742221/Queen_s_and_prince_s_consent_pamphlet__September_2018___accessible_.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

On top of this, there are NO records about how many laws have been vetoed before reaching Parliament, but it is suspected to run into the hundreds.

So, now that I have proved it, can you please stop going round in f**king circles trying to disprove a proven fact.

I repeat my initial remark was the UK is effectively a Parliamentary Democracy and that is true. I didn't post that to start some argument claiming the Crown has no powers or doesn't interfere on some level. My remarks were concerning Dominic Raab's idea that Parliament could be sidestepped to somehow vacilitate Brexit through other means.

You, for some unknown reason seemed to take umbrage at the term "Parliamentary Democracy" and then trawl the internet for "facts" to prove your somewhat strained point.

I'm not in the least surprised the Monarchy has interfered but I stand by my remarks that the Monarch takes instruction from the Prime Minister. And he or she is the leader of the Political Party than can command a majority in the HOC.

This idea that the Crown or Monarchy have any real power really is a bit of a vacuous point. It is inconcievable that Queen Elizabeth 11 could dismiss Johnson or whoever the new PM merely because she doesn't like him or agree with his policies.

Arguments along this line are fiction. The Crown started losing power going way back to the Magna Carta (did she die in vain). Essentially the UK has no written constitution. The country has evolved over centuries and the constitution as such is an amaglamation of centuries of tradition and precedent.

Parliamentary soverignity and the democratic outcome of the General Election are the pillerstones and the core principle of Britain...says I.

This idea that the Crown or Monarchy have any real power really is a bit of a vacuous point. It is inconcievable that Queen Elizabeth 11 could dismiss Johnson or whoever the new PM merely because she doesn't like him or agree with his policies.

Arguments along this line are fiction. The Crown started losing power going way back to the Magna Carta (did she die in vain). Essentially the UK has no written constitution. The country has evolved over centuries and the constitution as such is an amaglamation of centuries of tradition and precedent.

Parliamentary soverignity and the democratic outcome of the General Election are the pillerstones and the core principle of Britain...says I.

The monarchy are purely symbolic and have no legislative power whatever.
The signing of governmental process in itself is an act of tradition, for the queen to refuse to give her consent to a democratically passed legislative document would be a step back to the dark ages.

Fears Liverpool teens are being 'offered up to £1,000' to stab other children

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-teens-being-offered-up-16439275#ICID=Android_EchoNewsApp_AppShare

The story above consists entirely of claims and suggestion to back up a headline of money being paid to kids to stab other kids in Liverpool.
Meanwhile in London 5 people have been stabbed or shot to death in the last two weeks, no claims or suggestion.

I repeat my initial remark was the UK is effectively a Parliamentary Democracy and that is true. I didn't post that to start some argument claiming the Crown has no powers or doesn't interfere on some level. My remarks were concerning Dominic Raab's idea that Parliament could be sidestepped to somehow vacilitate Brexit through other means.

You, for some unknown reason seemed to take umbrage at the term "Parliamentary Democracy" and then trawl the internet for "facts" to prove your somewhat strained point.

I'm not in the least surprised the Monarchy has interfered but I stand by my remarks that the Monarch takes instruction from the Prime Minister. And he or she is the leader of the Political Party than can command a majority in the HOC.

I stated that the UK is NOT a "Parliamentary Dempcracy", it is a "Represntative Monarchy"
This is a fact.
It is also a FACT that the "Crown" has power of veto over laws which may affect it's interests.
It is also a FACT that the "Crown" has used this veto many times.
This is why it is a Representative Monarchy and not a "Parliamenttary Democracy".

You then prceeded to ignore your own links which showed I was correct, going out of your way to obfuscate and bullshit despite being so clearly wrong.

Get over yourself, everything I stated is true and factual.

But I suppose this being the internet, you think your opinion trumps facts.

I stated that the UK is NOT a "Parliamentary Dempcracy", it is a "Represntative Monarchy"
This is a fact.
It is also a FACT that the "Crown" has power of veto over laws which may affect it's interests.
It is also a FACT that the "Crown" has used this veto many times.
This is why it is a Representative Monarchy and not a "Parliamenttary Democracy".

You then prceeded to ignore your own links which showed I was correct, going out of your way to obfuscate and bullshit despite being so clearly wrong.

Get over yourself, everything I stated is true and factual.

But I suppose this being the internet, you think your opinion trumps facts.

Look you came in on something.You didn't disprove that the UK has a Parliamentary Democracy.Your case was flimsy at best.Had I been giving you councel I would have advised you not to proceed. Insults and swearing do not constitute an argument.

The UK is a Parliamentary Democeacy. There is no written contitution so many conclusions can be arrived at but in my opinion the UK is a Parliamentary Democracy and I base that judgement on the system as is.

While I respect opinions on here saying stuff like "get over youself" and making ridiculous assumptions about opinion V facts and other put downs doesn't enhance your argument.

But have a nice day.

Fears Liverpool teens are being 'offered up to £1,000' to stab other children

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-teens-being-offered-up-16439275#ICID=Android_EchoNewsApp_AppShare

The story above consists entirely of claims and suggestion to back up a headline of money being paid to kids to stab other kids in Liverpool.
Meanwhile in London 5 people have been stabbed or shot to death in the last two weeks, no claims or suggestion.

While there are many aspects and reasons for knife crime Trump should not be sticking his nose into UK matters. Difficult enough trying to combat knife crime as it is so we don't need lessons from Trump on violent crime.

While there are many aspects and reasons for knife crime Trump should not be sticking his nose into UK matters. Difficult enough trying to combat knife crime as it is so we don't need lessons from Trump on violent crime.

Trump forgets conveniently the 40,000 gun deaths in the US last year, horrifyingly a record number while he totally supports the NRA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html

Why people respond to Trump is beyond me he uses it to deflect and he should be ignored, Knife crime however is something that is really getting out of control and we don't seem to be able to get a grip of it. There are people in society that simply don't want to fit in and contribute ..they are  not black or white, Muslim or Christian they are dangerous to all of us and need dealing with harshly and swiftly.
We live in dangerous times when we are at a time when life should be good for all of us.

Look you came in on something.You didn't disprove that the UK has a Parliamentary Democracy.Your case was flimsy at best.Had I been giving you councel I would have advised you not to proceed. Insults and swearing do not constitute an argument.

The UK is a Parliamentary Democeacy. There is no written contitution so many conclusions can be arrived at but in my opinion the UK is a Parliamentary Democracy and I base that judgement on the system as is.

While I respect opinions on here saying stuff like "get over youself" and making ridiculous assumptions about opinion V facts and other put downs doesn't enhance your argument.

But have a nice day.

Fella, your own f**king link proved that what I said was correct.

I can't believe you didn't even bother to read your own link.

Your "opinion" is irrelevant in the face of facts, and the fact is that the UK is a Representative Monarchy.
If you can't even grasp such a simple fact, and instead hide behind "opinion" then you shouldn't really be gobbing off about this.

You can't even grasp WHY the difference is important, or that having a Monarch who regularly vetoes laws is an issue.
Instead, you just try to deny it happens, despite the evidence and start banging on about how the Monarch can't remove the PM.
It's utter nonsense.

Fella, your own f**king link proved that what I said was correct.

I can't believe you didn't even bother to read your own link.

Your "opinion" is irrelevant in the face of facts, and the fact is that the UK is a Representative Monarchy.
If you can't even grasp such a simple fact, and instead hide behind "opinion" then you shouldn't really be gobbing off about this.

You can't even grasp WHY the difference is important, or that having a Monarch who regularly vetoes laws is an issue.
Instead, you just try to deny it happens, despite the evidence and start banging on about how the Monarch can't remove the PM.
It's utter nonsense.

When was the last time the crown vetoed a law ?

When was the last time the crown vetoed a law ?

Not my chosen field so I googled.. 😎

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

Not my chosen field so I googled.. 😎

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

The crown vetoed the Iraq bill in 1999 and what difference did it make?
The sh*t still went down regardless, as stated the crown’s approval in the form of a signature is entirely symbolic.

When was the last time the crown vetoed a law ?

Check the link I posted mate.
39 instances from the last few years, thnks to FOI, which the government is now trying to make the "Crown" immune from.

There's also the fact there are no records that show how many prospective laws have been vetoed i.e. before they get to Parliament.

Then there's the Remembrancer, who represents the "City Of London" which also has links to the "Crown" and the fact the City is the biggest money laundering centre on earth.
And that's before we even get to the fact that the "Crown" has direct links to offshore tax havens.

The whole "Crown", "City Of London" thing is a massive bed of corruption, and our Parliament is just a box ticking exercise.

This is why I think the correct description of "Representative Moarchy" is important; because the "Crown" is the centre of a huge spiders web of corruption, deceit and entrenched privelege which they exercise regularly.

The crown vetoed the Iraq bill in 1999 and what difference did it make?
The sh*t still went down regardless, as stated the crown’s approval in the form of a signature is entirely symbolic.

If the Crown see a bill that affects the interest of the Crown then the bill is vetoed, if the bill does not affect the Crown it gets approval..

From my understanding the article..

Platini arrested over Qatar WC. Its worth reading just how he has son and France benefited from the decision. However his vote of course was given for the good of the Game and nothing to do with a bung of massive proportions.

If the Crown see a bill that affects the interest of the Crown then the bill is vetoed, if the bill does not affect the Crown it gets approval..

From my understanding the article..

As stated presenting a bill to the sovereign is symbolic, democracy rules.
As in the Iraq situation the crown's veto is also symbolic and of no consequence.