For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1831902
Definitely up for abolition of the aristocracy - 1000 years of banditry begun with the Norman Conquest and so many lives wasted on family squabbles.

But the war between image as truth and what remains of journalism is the more interesting one since our local aristocracy no longer completely dominate the economy. When is accuracy journalism, when is it dealing with spin, when is it doxing and when is it invasion of privacy? I was surprised the DM lost the current court case. Since it affects the monarchy which does still have real power there is a clear public interest.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1831904
malcolmfrost wrote:I'm happy with having a Queen/King as the alternative is President Blair, Adonis, Johnson.....


It seems a great many countries get by well without either of those options, or worse still Trump.

If there is one thing that is abundandly obvious then it has to be that some countries in the past seen as beacons of freedom and democracy have been struggling to have any flavour of unity and progress due to the actions of a small group of people.
#1831915
Pete L wrote:
But the war between image as truth and what remains of journalism is the more interesting one since our local aristocracy no longer completely dominate the economy.

Interesting to speculate which is better for the average Joe: A country in which a local aristocracy, that has an interest in fostering national prosperity and interests, even if for selfish motives, holds the reins of economic power, or over-large multi national corporations, often headed by greedy moguls whose loyalty is merely to their company profits without regard for national interest. Many of the first over the trench tops to their certain demise were the sons of aristocracy and I somehow can't see the sons of the multi-nationals and Silicone Valley IT platform chiefs which have replaced them doing the same. :lol:

PW
Pete L, Spooky, seanxair and 1 others liked this
#1831923
rogerb wrote:I wonder whether anyone speculated on the colour of the babies hair :? !
Speculation is part of humanity.


As a ginge married to a Chinese, I agree totally, and find such speculation entirely normal. We have often discussed what skin colour are kids would be, eye shape, hair colour etc etc. None of this is racism. No more than wondering whether the baby will be a boy or girl is sexism.

That, of course, doesn't mean racism couldn't have been at play here, but even then there is a wide range from deliberately outright nasty to completely unintentional, and everything in between.

When I was living in Hong Kong, as a minority I experienced occasional racism. As does my wife here. Nearly always, it is unintentional and harmless. In my opinion, the best way to treat it is to rise above it, and never to respond in kind. The best way to minimise racism is education, and you do that by your behaviour. People fear what they don't understand, and when they see that it isn't the colour of your skin that determines whether you are a good person, they respond to you as a person and stop even seeing the colour. Eventually, hopefully, people come to treasure the differences rather than decry them.

The problem with playing the racism card is it rarely, if ever, ends well. It does more to increase racial tensions than it does to relieve them. In my own personal opinion, there is almost no situation in which you should scream racism. When it wasn't intended, it is an unnecessary response, and when it was intended it is far better to respond with dignity or move away. It is a bit like a nuclear weapon - there is almost no real world scenario when a wise person will actually deploy one.

Meghan and Harry will almost certainly come to regret their decision. Of course, wisdom comes with experience, and experience usually comes from making mistakes.

My hope here is that the Palace shows the wisdom to rise above this one. The best response from where I sit is no response at all. Anything else will almost certainly be a lose / lose.
Flyin'Dutch', HedgeSparrow, MikeE and 7 others liked this
#1831931
Bill McCarthy wrote:The monarchy has brought £billions to the country in tourism alone. Indeed I’m in favour of building another Royal Yacht as the old one certainly did its bit around the world in on board trade deals.


As @Flyin'Dutch' alludes to, there are plenty of places without kings, queen's, princes, princesses and other fairy tale guff that have tourists.

Do you honestly believe that people considering visiting the UK would say: "Hell, I'm not going, they don't have an old lady in a sparkly hat."?
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1831948
Propwash wrote:
Pete L wrote:
But the war between image as truth and what remains of journalism is the more interesting one since our local aristocracy no longer completely dominate the economy.

Interesting to speculate which is better for the average Joe: A country in which a local aristocracy, that has an interest in fostering national prosperity and interests, even if for selfish motives, holds the reins of economic power, or over-large multi national corporations, often headed by greedy moguls whose loyalty is merely to their company profits without regard for national interest. Many of the first over the trench tops to their certain demise were the sons of aristocracy and I somehow can't see the sons of the multi-nationals and Silicone Valley IT platform chiefs which have replaced them doing the same. :lol:

PW


Those silicone valley types are slippery customers, but at least they made something compared to the average oligarch, and a reasonable number have promised nicely to hand most of their fortunes back in the Carnegie style.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9