BBC’s “Big Question” – presented by B-BBC favourite Nicky Campbell now taking on the all important issue of whether the Monarchy needs to end with Her Majesty. I’m looking forward to the same programme fearlessly debating whether the bloated parasitic BBC needs to end. The BBC never misses a chance to bash the Monarchy and the panel is stacked with anti-monarchists.
SHOULD THE MONARCHY END?
Bookmark the permalink.
Bloody Beeb. They know what they are against but don't know what they are for. They know they hate Britain, hate the queen, hate capitalism, hate the family but dont know what they are for. They are like a 15yr old having a strop 'oh thats so lame!' being against anything their parents do without the good sense to ask why the parents do it.
We need the Monarchy for continuity solidity pride strength and moderacy it brings.
President(Chairman) Brown? don't make me laugh.
Do we need a Scottish queen (Nicky Campbell)polluting the airwaves every day with his drivle?
Do we need a national state broadcaster who has no presenters who aren't gay ethnic or members of the socialist worker?
Should the BBC end at bbc 2 and not continue expanding into the marketplace stiffling any commercial attempts to set up internet/digital media. How can ITV survive while a bloated oversubsidised artschool lefty organisation competes with all the money stolen from the british people behind it.
How much longer must we be force fed crap about the obamessiah global warming and the death of capitalism?
In the days where we dont have an empire, when we are not a super power any more. When successive governments have given up our independance and made us a lap dog to the yanks and europes whipping boy. Why do we have the biggest state broadcasting organisation in the world?
When HRH got rid of the Brittannia it was said that the monarchy was shrinking to adjust to its dimminished role in a post empire Britain. Why can the Monarchy adapt so quickly and yet aunty still grows and grows like topsy?
If anything is anarchronistic and out dated it is not our beloved greek/german family firm but the new wave pravda that is the beeb.
The dutch royal family,we are told, travel around by bicycle. Why then shouldn't the queens of all the media?
Up with the queen down with the queens.
(BTW i am not some ranting homophobe but it does strike me as odd that if you're white male straight and christian you have more chance of seeing a fair Iranian election than getting a presenting job at the beeb.)
Why is the BBC allowed to distort the market with government subsidies,surely this is against EU competition rules?
'Should Nicky Campbell be shot out of a cannon into a vat of sloppy dog turds?' Lines are open. The usual rates and conditions apply.
An elected head of state could say to a PM you promised a referendum lets have one.
An elected head of state could say to Brown you have lost support of the people your party and you do not even have the ability to get rid of a corrupt chancellor Time for an election.
An elected head might turn out to be a bad choice but he would be our choice and we would have a chance of getting rid of him at the next election.
With princy Charly we have him until he dies getting richer and richer selling fake medicine to the more guilable of his subjects while his sons fly about in helicopters the army urgently need else where.
"The BBC never misses a chance to bash the Monarchy"
Quite right. I mean, Yesterday's Trooping the Colour coverage was completely anti-royalist, and its latest archive collection covering the broadcasting recordings of Princess Elizabeth is purely republican in its sentiments.
Chalk up another one in the column marked "David Vance: I'll Decide What The Truth Is, Thank You Very Much, And If You Use Facts To Point Out Anything To The Contrary I'll Call You A Troll"
"Bloody Beeb. They know what they are against but don't know what they are for"
Same as all lefties. Perhaps they should shriek "what don't we want?" at demos – because they rarely know what they do want; and never seem to be able to come up with any actual, thought-through solutions.
How can anyone argue that Pricky Campbell's relentless leftist agenda in any way meets the Beeb's remit.
This is not just propaganda, it's BBC propaganda
Lefties do know what they want. They want mass immigration to destroy this country.
Scott,
Maybe they are a bit schizoid but on all their comment/editorial/intellectual shows they continue to push an antimonarchist anti-theist anticapitalist agenda. They might do the trooping the colour window dressing because its cheap telly and allows them more cash to put more nice muslims in Robin Hood more camp talent shows and more channels pumping out their incessant left wing 'common purpose' drivel. The trooping the colour allows them the appearance of balance like the token black in a 1950s melodrama. Showing uncle toms cabin did not make the fifties media anti racist and showing trooping the colour does not make auntie pro monarchist
The royals are as unnecessary as the BBC but if I had to choose to abolish one of the institutions I go for the BBC. The royals only cost me 60p a year or so. The BBC costs me £142.50 and 95% of what I get in return for this cash is utter trash like Eastenders, Casulaty and Top Gear.
I'm small-r republican and don't believe the monarchy should continue. Am prepared to argue that point elsewhere.
That said, what the hell makes -this- The Big Question right now? How many people on the street do you find who consider this to be their absolute topmost burning priority right this second? Would that be zero? Even for me who comes down on the anti- side, I think it's far from the list of things we have the leisure to address right now.
That last one is more or less my own position. It's not exactly the Big Question right now for anyone.
did they not suggest replacing one Queen with another (Mandelson)
Martin,
Vitually every post these days, you attempt to turn the subject round to homosexuality.
Is there maybe something you want to get off your chest?
Ron Todd –
An elected Head of State would be another Party crony , whose great office would have been subverted and debased to support "The Project".
Look at what they have , quite easily , managed to do to the once great office of Speaker and how it has slanted all debate and the political process .
They corrupt everything they touch . Thankfully Her Majesty is immune by virtue of her great experience , intelligence and popularity .
New Labour = New Totalitarian , Statist Corruption .
I agree with the posters saying that this is not "The Big Question" now – so why is it the big question on the BBC? Simple really it is a diversion – and a particular issue with the BBC Eurofantics.
I don't particulary respect the Queen just now as she seems not to care for her subjects, but I prefer the present state of affairs to the alternative.
Whenever this issue comes up in conversation, I simply say two words: either "President Blair" or "President Thatcher", depending on who I'm speaking to. It usually does the trick. Sometimes I also opine that a president would end up costing more – I can't prove it but, deep down, I just know that it would.
So far as democracy is concerned, the EU Commission has far more power than the Queen but I've yet to find anyone who can explain to me how, in practice, I can exercise any democratic control over it.
That works quite well too.
This question was settled definitively in 1688-9 , anyway .
Tyranny overthrown , Parliamentary government and a constitutional monarchy installed , the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right .
We've been free since then . Why do leftists want to stir this up when it has worked so well ?
The answer to that question shows us how much we have to fear from their plans .
"They know what they are against but don't know what they are for"
Definitely a kernel of truth in this.
The panel/audience was packed with smug leftists like Benjamin Zephania who think that everything will be sweetness and light the day the monarchy are abolished.
Predictably, the BNP spokesmen, who I do not support, were sabotaged and undermined at every opportunity.
In an interview I once read, Zephania said his father once told him to "go to hell". I can only heartily endorse his suggestion.
My limited experience of The Palace is that every night several full Red Boxes would be sent to The Queen – wherever she was in the world. She dealt with the lot, every damn day, far faster than most of her Cabinet Ministers dealt with their Red Boxes. Even with a Private Office, that means hours of work by The Queen every day. Just 60 years of public duty.
JohnA _ I don't doubt your experience – but does she actually read what she signs? Did it only take her a few minutes to betray her coronation oath when signing power over to the EU?
John Horne Tooke
My point was that The Queen and her staff are just as attentive to the constant flow of Red Boxes as most Cabinet Ministers – and she gets as many as they get, and much more than lesser Minsters get. She is known to read all copies of Foreign Office "telegrams" – especially concerning the Commonwealth. I bet she reads everything she signs every bit as closely as her Ministers. Most Prime Ministers have commented that they are amazed how "on top of the paperwork" she is.
As to signing legislation – she has no option within the constitution but to accept the advice of her Ministers, as you know.
My overall impression was that The Queen's work ethic was extremely strong as regards her public duties. I worked in Private Offices for some Ministers – one in particular would find any excuse not to deal with his paperwork. Anything important and he would shoot off to the toilet !
Often Ministers would deal with some of their box contets, but other stuff would be returned unread or unresolved, put back in the box the next night, would probably have to be sent several times before it was dealt with. And on occasion one would almost need to grab the Misister by the throat to get something sorted !
Yes, Private Offices deal with a lot of the lesser stuff, provide draft replies from the civil service, usually send Private Secretary replies for lesser stuff – but still the Red Box recipient has to plough through the stuff, comment, sign replies, approve PS replies etc. My experience was that the handling of Red Boxes by The Palace was punctilious. Not so by many Ministers.
To add to this – many Ministers turn up at Cabinet or Cabinet subcommittees without proper reading of the agenda items. Few were up to the job of chairing meetings. There were notable exceptions – Michael Foot was red hot on paperwork, Jenkins was an excellent chairman, but his successor as Home Sec was hopeless, would let meetings meander round in circles until some sort of consensus would emerge by sheer exhaustion – at which point he would fail to extract the consensus and would start asking more damn-fool questions.
I very much doubt whether Charlie Boy will maintain the impeccable standards set by his mother.
JohnA – my post intended no criticism of you. Thanks for the follow up it was very illuminating.
Plans for a 'Federal Europe' and the overthrow of democracy involves the abolition of the Monarchy as one of many factors.
Most of today's media presenters, are those willing to cite Labour's 'social engineering propaganda' funded by licence payers.
John Horne Took
No worries – I simply wanted to amplify a few of my earlier comments.