NationStates Jolt Archive

I say yes. Give 'em the boot. I mean come on, why should we the hard-working citizens of Great Britain pay for the upkeep of Fascist pigs like Prince Philip? After we get rid of them we can start calling ourselves a true democracy instead of a 'Constitutional Monarchy'.

twat f off the monarchy rule and u dont s:upyours: o stick it

I say yes. Give 'em the boot. I mean come on, why should we the hard-working citizens of Great Britain pay for the upkeep of Fascist pigs like Prince Philip? After we get rid of them we can start calling ourselves a true democracy instead of a 'Constitutional Monarchy'.

You do realize that income from the royal estates, which is donated to the government, is greater than the amount of money spent on maintaining the royal family, right?

They should get jobs in Hollywood

twat f off the monarchy rule and u dont s:upyours: o stick it

I... can't... u.n.d.e.r.s.t.a.n.d you.

I say yes. Give 'em the boot. I mean come on, why should we the hard-working citizens of Great Britain pay for the upkeep of Fascist pigs like Prince Philip? After we get rid of them we can start calling ourselves a true democracy instead of a 'Constitutional Monarchy'.

TEH PWNAGE!! YTF shud us l33ts pay 60p a YERE for TEH m0narchy!

You do realize that income from the royal estates, which is donated to the government, is greater than the amount of money spent on maintaining the royal family, right?

I realise it, but the threadstarter sure as hell doesn't.
Monarchy is an excellent export, I don't see why people have to object to something which makes us richer and attracts inferior races to visit our grand nation. :D

They're bloody good for tourism, and their estates are nice, too, plus they're a stabilising influence. The monarchy are alright.

I concede that while the monarchy is good for tourism, I can't help but see the Royal Family as a bunch of unemployed, pompuous, self-righteous racist pigs that have done nothing to warrant being deserving of such a lavish lifestyle but be born. They get away with their racist remarks in the media, being labelled as merely eccentric. They're hardly the symbol of all that is GREAT about Britain.

When this whole, brief and deluded foray into democracy is over, the monarchy will still be around and life for us Britons will go on as ever before....

...as the rest of the world dissolves into anarchy and we re-establish the Empire.


What? I'm a patriot with dreams.

^ We will not reestablish, we will expand my darling. The Commonwealth is still there, and if we toy along to steal the BNP's voters and reimburse the Tories we can still take back India by the next decade...

Mmmyes, the Dapper Dandy shall return. :D

When this whole, brief and deluded foray into democracy is over, the monarchy will still be around and life for us Britons will go on as ever before....

...as the rest of the world dissolves into anarchy and we re-establish the Empire.


What? I'm a patriot with dreams.

Jolly good old chap!

Not another Windsor-bashing thread... :rolleyes:

Seriously, is President Blair going to cost less than Queen Elizabeth? Tony AFAIK has no crown estates...

Not another Windsor-bashing thread... :rolleyes:

Seriously, is President Blair going to cost less than Queen Elizabeth? Tony AFAIK has no crown estates...

And we all know how countries with Presidents and palaces turn out!

I say yes. Give 'em the boot. I mean come on, why should we the hard-working citizens of Great Britain pay for the upkeep of Fascist pigs like Prince Philip? After we get rid of them we can start calling ourselves a true democracy instead of a 'Constitutional Monarchy'.

You do realise that if you keep saying that, you will be arrested, and executed for High Treason?

Not another Windsor-bashing thread... :rolleyes:

Seriously, is President Blair going to cost less than Queen Elizabeth? Tony AFAIK has no crown estates...

Yes, but will President Blair bring in as much in toruism or as Rosdivan said,

You do realize that income from the royal estates, which is donated to the government, is greater than the amount of money spent on maintaining the royal family, right?

You do realise that if you keep saying that, you will be arrested, and executed for High Treason?

The law was changed in '97, but yeah, you can get locked up forever for saying that. So don't, because the monarchy are ace anyway.

You do realise that if you keep saying that, you will be arrested, and executed for High Treason?

Good joke. :D

Meh get rid of them. I don't like it when you have yo bow to someone just because of who their parents were.

Meh get rid of them. I don't like it when you have yo bow to someone just because of who their parents were.

Do you not realise that they hold very little real power, and donate lots of money and property to the people of the UK, as well as bringing some degree of stability to this land?

I quite like them, myself. I don't care for Charles, but oh well...

Yes, but will President Blair bring in as much in toruism...
I am not sure that an executive president of a nuclear power costs less than a constitutional monarch. Wonder who's more expensive, Liz or Chirac? Putin certainly costs us much more than the British Queen does to the UK treasury.

I am not sure that an executive president of a nuclear power costs less than a constitutional monarch. Wonder who's more expensive, Liz or Chirac? Putin certainly costs us much more than the British Queen does to the UK treasury.

Exactly. And people don't go and look at one of Chirac's houses, do they?

I am not sure that an executive president of a nuclear power costs less than a constitutional monarch. Wonder who's more expensive, Liz or Chirac? Putin certainly costs us much more than the British Queen does to the UK treasury.

Wait, I might have made a mess of understanding you...

In fact I think I have...I thought you were arguing against when it seems you're not too bothered about the monarchy...oh well...my fault :P

I'm betting Chirac somehow :D

God save the Queen

She gives the rest of humanity something to point and laugh at.

Do you not realise that they hold very little real power, and donate lots of money and property to the people of the UK, as well as bringing some degree of stability to this land?

I quite like them, myself. I don't care for Charles, but oh well...
I started to like him since one event last year. I was in London, and I stood alone near the Wellington monument in Hyde Park Corner. Charles' Rolls-Royce drove past, and he waved at me, a lone and average-looking bloke with a camera. It touched me somehow, as it's just not the thing to expect from Fradkov or Putin.

Perhaps they're a little overpaid. But, speaking as a Canadian, they serve as a safe-gaurd to our democracy. Should a member of parliament violate the constitution, it is the job of the Crown to step in and throw him/her out of office.

Well then, all you Pro-Monarchists. How's about a compromise?

Wouldn't it be better if we spent less on the Royal Family, instead of outright kicking them out? We'd still have the tourism, but more money for us and less for Philip "Go back to the colonies, negro" Windsor?

I just hate that vile man for disgracing us Scots by asking that driving instructor, "How do you keep the locals off the booze long enough to pass the test?" then the media just passing it off as nothing.

Not another Windsor-bashing thread... :rolleyes:

Seriously, is President Blair going to cost less than Queen Elizabeth? Tony AFAIK has no crown estates...
The Crown Estates are the property of the state, so yes, a Presidential system would maintain them.

However, I'm in favour of the monarchy, but not in its current form. It needs reforming.

You do realise that if you keep saying that, you will be arrested, and executed for High Treason?
....you do realise that there is no death penalty for anything in the UK?

I just hate that vile man for disgracing us Scots by asking that driving instructor, "How do you keep the locals off the booze long enough to pass the test?" then the media just passing it off as nothing.

OMG, he cracked a joke? How outrageous... :rolleyes:

....you do realise that there is no death penalty for anything in the UK?

...you do realise that he wasn't being entirely serious?

Exactly. And people don't go and look at one of Chirac's houses, do they?

Yet the Palace of Versailles still attracts more people than Buckingham Palace every year.

It's not just a waste of money, it's complete nonsense. If I wanted a soap opera, I'd watch Corrie, and have it funded by adverts of the TV licence, not with taxpayer's money, and not based on a birth "right."

However, I can't see a reason to have a seperate head of state, why not just transfer the powers of the Crown to Parliament, with the Prime Minister as President. Then we just have one political office to pay for, not two.

...you do realise that he wasn't being entirely serious?

And I'm meant to know this on the basis of the one post of his that I've read?

However, I can't see a reason to have a seperate head of state, why not just transfer the powers of the Crown to Parliament, with the Prime Minister as President. Then we just have one political office to pay for, not two.

Aside from the constitutional problems that raises? The Crown is one of the three parts of Parliament (the Crown/Queen-in-Parliament, the Lords, and the Commons) and is, constitutionally, the source of all its authority.

However, I can't see a reason to have a seperate head of state, why not just transfer the powers of the Crown to Parliament, with the Prime Minister as President. Then we just have one political office to pay for, not two.

Because the monarch's allegiance is to each and every one of his or her citizens, not just to those by whom he or she was elected...

Aside from the constitutional problems that raises? The Crown is one of the three parts of Parliament and is, constitutionally, the source of all its authority.

Therefore, to do that, we would have a new written constitution.

Yet the Palace of Versailles still attracts more people than Buckingham Palace every year.

...
Buckingham Palace is as bland as a palace can be.

High Treason STILL carries the death penalty in the UK, its the only offence that still does.

And, I think we should elect our Monarchs rather than chosing them by birth.

Oh wait... thats a President...


VIVE LA REPUBLIC!

Therefore, to do that, we would have a new written constitution.
Nah, the 'organic' uncodified constitution we have now is one of the good things about our system of government.

High Treason STILL carries the death penalty in the UK, its the only offence that still does.
...
It doesn't since the adoption of Crime And Disorder Act in 1998.

I concede that while the monarchy is good for tourism, I can't help but see the Royal Family as a bunch of unemployed, pompuous, self-righteous racist pigs that have done nothing to warrant being deserving of such a lavish lifestyle but be born. They get away with their racist remarks in the media, being labelled as merely eccentric. They're hardly the symbol of all that is GREAT about Britain.

Hey, hey, hey. The Royal Family are employed by the State to carry out functions connected with their roles as members of the House of Windsor and relatives of the Sovereign of the UK.
Prince Phillip is the ONLY openly racist member of the Royal Family, but is one of the most popular - Christ only knows why.
You say that they deserve no such lavish lifestyle, but would you have the Royal Family of the UK live in a council estate or on a leafy suburban street?
The lavish lifestyle you speak of is paid for entirely by themselves, with the money paid to the Queen for the performance of Her State duties being paid back, all of it except for Her expenses - travel etc. If you came across Bill Gates in the street (not very likely, I know, but work with me here) would you say to him that his lifestyle is too extravagant, and that he doesn't deserve it? Granted, he has built up a corporate empire, but the monarchy in the UK is an ancient institution and it's members deserve some respect.

No, the House of Windsor does not epitomise the Greatness of Britain, but it is a part of what makes us different to all those Republics around the world. It says something about the effectiveness of our system though, that all major constitutional monarchies in the world are based on the Westminster system. The Queen and the monarchy are extremely important to the UK, and whilst it isn't all that makes Britain great, it is a great thing about Britain.

Because the monarch's allegiance is to each and every one of his or her citizens, not just to those by whom he or she was elected...

So, by that logic, we should abolish the House of Commons, and transfer legislative power to the Lords, so that we have a legislature with every MP allied to "their whole constituency, not just their voters."

That's the whole idea with democracy - people are elected by the majority, not by chance.

High Treason STILL carries the death penalty in the UK, its the only offence that still does.

No it doesn't.

See section 36 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998:

(1) In section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1537 (practising any harm etc. to, or slandering, the King, Queen or heirs apparent punishable as high treason), for the words "have and suffer such pains of death and" there shall be substituted the words "be liable to imprisonment for life and to such".(1) In section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1537 (practising any harm etc. to, or slandering, the King, Queen or heirs apparent punishable as high treason), for the words "have and suffer such pains of death and" there shall be substituted the words "be liable to imprisonment for life and to such".

(2) In the following enactments, namely-



(a) section II of the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 (occasioning disturbance etc. to the crown of Ireland punishable as high treason);



(b) section XII of the Act of Supremacy (Ireland) 1560 (penalties for maintaining or defending foreign authority);



(c) section 3 of the Treason Act 1702 (endeavouring to hinder the succession to the Crown etc. punishable as high treason);



(d) section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1703 (which makes corresponding provision),

for the words "suffer pains of death" there shall be substituted the words "be liable to imprisonment for life".
(3) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely-



(a) the Treason Act 1790;



(b) the Treason Act 1795.

(4) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1814 (form of sentence in case of high treason), for the words "such person shall be hanged by the neck until such person be dead", there shall be substituted the words "such person shall be liable to imprisonment for life".

(5) In section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837 (punishment of piracy when murder is attempted), for the words "and being convicted thereof shall suffer death" there shall be substituted the words "and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life".

(6) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely-



(a) the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931; and



(b) sections 32 and 33 of the Criminal Justice Act Northern Ireland) 1945 (which make corresponding provision).

High Treason STILL carries the death penalty in the UK, its the only offence that still does.

The law changed in '97 or '98. You now get locked up for life instead (probably not in the Tower of London, though).

So, by that logic, we should abolish the House of Commons, and transfer legislative power to the Lords, so that we have a legislature with every MP allied to "their whole constituency, not just their voters."

That's the whole idea with democracy - people are elected by the majority, not by chance.

But the monarch is a symbol of the nation, not the ruler. It is important to have something behind which the nation can unite, i.e. the monarchy.

Nah, the 'organic' uncodified constitution we have now is one of the good things about our system of government.

I disagree, it just lets the government get away with what it wants to do. I think we should just have a constitution that's not as rigid and difficult to amend as the US one. That's what most Commonwealth countries seem to get along with OK.

I disagree, it just lets the government get away with what it wants to do. I think we should just have a constitution that's not as rigid and difficult to amend as the US one. That's what most Commonwealth countries seem to get along with OK.
Going to have to agree to disagree then.

I'm an American so I don't have a dog in this fight. :p

Therefore, to do that, we would have a new written constitution.

You'd still have an issue with the separation of powers. It is my personal opinion that men like George W. Bush have far too much power in their country, with dictatorial powers, with direct control over all areas of their country. With a separation of powers, you have safeguards that prevent anything like a dictator arising. A member of the House of Commons must become Prime Minister, and so a President taking over the powers of Prime Minister would not only have control of the executive, he would inherit power over the legislature and the judiciary as well.

But the monarch is a symbol of the nation, not the ruler. It is important to have something behind which the nation can unite, i.e. the monarchy.

Unite the nation? It's divisive by nature. Not everyone wants thatir head of state to be by definition always an upper-class toff as their head of state. And anyway, we've had the nations split over the drama over Diana and Camilla for a start.

That Nation is probably more United behind our individual English/Welsh/Schttish/NT Football teams than the anglo-german monarchy.

Not everyone wants thatir head of state to be by definition always an upper-class toff as their head of state.

I don't see anyone protesting in the streets...

You'd still have an issue with the separation of powers. It is my personal opinion that men like George W. Bush have far too much power in their country, with dictatorial powers, with direct control over all areas of their country. With a separation of powers, you have safeguards that prevent anything like a dictator arising. A member of the House of Commons must become Prime Minister, and so a President taking over the powers of Prime Minister would not only have control of the executive, he would inherit power over the legislature and the judiciary as well.
In theory, there's no such thing as seperation of powers in the United Kingdom constitution.

The highest court of the land is the High Court of Parliament, exercised by the House of Lords (at least, until the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 comes into force).

The executive is appointed from Parliament (which is something I think is extremely important, actually).

I like the way the system works, or rather will work once the Lords' judicial function is removed.

Having the executive drawn from, and completely answerable to, Parliament is a good way to keep it accountable.

You'd still have an issue with the separation of powers. It is my personal opinion that men like George W. Bush have far too much power in their country, with dictatorial powers, with direct control over all areas of their country. With a separation of powers, you have safeguards that prevent anything like a dictator arising. A member of the House of Commons must become Prime Minister, and so a President taking over the powers of Prime Minister would not only have control of the executive, he would inherit power over the legislature and the judiciary as well.

That's the system we have now, and all the countries in red and orange and green (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Form_of_government.png). What kind of republic we have would, if I had my way, be subject to a national referendum, and whether we go for Parliamentarism/Presidentialism a seperate debate.

I don't see anyone protesting in the streets...

I don't protest in the streets, but I don't like the Monarchy. Nobody protests over separation of powers, civil/common law, federalism, or any other constitutional titbits. In fact, we don't protest over much, to be honest.

I don't protest in the streets, but I don't like the Monarchy. Nobody protests over separation of powers, civil/common law, federalism, or any other constitutional titbits. In fact, we don't protest over much, to be honest.

We protest over things about which lots of people actually care.

I don't protest in the streets, but I don't like the Monarchy. Nobody protests over separation of powers, civil/common law, federalism, or any other constitutional titbits. In fact, we don't protest over much, to be honest.
And, when we do, it gets ignored.

And, when we do, it gets ignored.

Or banned.:p

I think, frankly, most people are happy enough with the monarchy as it is, but that would be completely different if a monarch tried to interfere in government.

Or banned.:p
Yeah, they don't like protests in Parliament Square because they're too difficult for the MPs to ignore as they dander into work...

Yeah, they don't like protests in Parliament Square because they're too difficult for the MPs to ignore as they dander into work...

According to one Tory Councillor protests 'deter outward investment'.

There you go, people.

Monarchs suck. They get their position without doing anything to earn it. In some ways, many dictators are better simply because they have to take risks and work for their power in the form of coups and such. Monarchs, however, just have their rank handed to them by birth.

Monarchs suck. They get their position without doing anything to earn it. In some ways, many dictators are better simply because they have to take risks and work for their power in the form of coups and such. Monarchs, however, just have their rank handed to them by birth.

So? There are plenty of filthy rich people. You wouldn't be complaining if you were filthy rich.

Monarchs suck. They get their position without doing anything to earn it. In some ways, many dictators are better simply because they have to take risks and work for their power in the form of coups and such. Monarchs, however, just have their rank handed to them by birth.
That's the best thing about them. They are prepared and trained from birth and they also owe their position to the country as a whole, not political parties or lobby groups or big business paying for their electoral campaign. And they also can't just decide to run for the position to abuse the power by making business contacts abroad and so on, and they can't cut and run once they've milked the position for all it's worth.

Last time this issue was brought up (what, 2004 or so? Long time ago, anyway), somebody pointed out that the Monarchy costs the average British taxpayer something like 60 pence per year (So about $1.20 in USD), while returning millions of dollars in tourism money and providing a large number of jobs.
Seems like a good deal to me.

That's the best thing about them. They are prepared and trained from birth and they also owe their position to the country as a whole, not political parties or lobby groups or big business paying for their electoral campaign. And they also can't just decide to run for the position to abuse the power by making business contacts abroad and so on, and they can't cut and run once they've milked the position for all it's worth.

But they also have no real safeguards on their power. Once they're in, they're in, and nothing short of assasination will get them out. There's no guarantee they will do what's in the interest in the entire nation. Let's not be naïve, here; they will do what ever they think is in their best interest and if they think they can get away with messing things up, they will.

And of course, the fundamental assumption of monarchy is that some people are inherently superior than others and deserve to rule. However, merely being born into a certain family doesn't prove you have the supposed genes for such superiority (ever heard of traits skipping generations?). It only proves that you were lucky enough to be handed power. You may turn out to lack the talent needed to rule.

Personally, it isn't the issue of cost or even security that bothers me. It is the issue of being a subject to a monarch who did nothing to warrant their rank other than get lucky. Why should I sacrifice my dignity for the sake of someone like that? I'll take dignity over safety and comfort any day (remember that old Ben Franklin quote.?)

But they also have no real safeguards on their power. Once they're in, they're in, and nothing short of assasination will get them out. There's no guarantee they will do what's in the interest in the entire nation. Let's not be naïve, here; they will do what ever they think is in their best interest and if they think they can get away with messing things up, they will.
I think that argument's more relevant to absolute rather than constitutional monarchs. Parliament's got rid of kings in the past, and at a time when there was far more support for the monarchy as an institution and far less precedent for getting rid of it. The royalty will be well aware that if they piss around too much and lose the support of the country in a big way they'll be out on their ear. How does the saying go? - 'Don't go to the toilet in your back garden'. It's in the best interest of the monarchy to do the job properly andnot rock the boat. You can't say the same for an elected head of state. Once theyve been elected, they'll have a finite term anyway so if they abuse their position and get impeached or don't get reelected so what? They were going to have to stand down soon anyway, they might as well do it having got the cost of the election campaign's worth and filled their pockets with everything they can, up to and including the Buckingham palace silverware.

And of course, the fundamental assumption of monarchy is that some people are inherently superior than others and deserve to rule. However, merely being born into a certain family doesn't prove you have the supposed genes for such superiority (ever heard of traits skipping generations?). It only proves that you were lucky enough to be handed power. You may turn out to lack the talent needed to rule.

I think that's a bit of an out dated view. My view on it is that it isn't the genetics that make them suited to their position, but the devotion of a lifetime training. It's like an old fashioned family business, with the skills passed father to son. And considering that the monarchy is mostly a representative function, the talent to rule in their case mostly consists of being able to hold a smile for extended periods. The same can't be said for an elected head of state. Each new iteration would be forced to prove him/herself and to effect a connection to the populace, which sounds like a good thing but really is a recipe for demagoguery and appealing to the lowest common denominator, not to mention politicising the role.

I think that argument's more relevant to absolute rather than constitutional monarchs. Parliament's got rid of kings in the past, and at a time when there was far more support for the monarchy as an institution and far less precedent for getting rid of it. The royalty will be well aware that if they piss around too much and lose the support of the country in a big way they'll be out on their ear. How does the saying go? - 'Don't go to the toilet in your back garden'. It's in the best interest of the monarchy to do the job properly andnot rock the boat. You can't say the same for an elected head of state. Once theyve been elected, they'll have a finite term anyway so if they abuse their position and get impeached or don't get reelected so what? They were going to have to stand down soon anyway, they might as well do it having got the cost of the election campaign's worth and filled their pockets with everything they can, up to and including the Buckingham palace silverware.

Aren't monarchs much more ingrained? If they were easy to remove, the point of monarchy would be lost (incidentally, what is the point?). After all, what distinguishes a king from a president besides the fact that a president has to work for election and has limits on how long they in office?

Aren't monarchs much more ingrained? If they were easy to remove, the point of monarchy would be lost (incidentally, what is the point?). After all, what distinguishes a king from a president besides the fact that a president has to work for election and has limits on how long they in office?
It's not that they're necessarily easier to remove, but if the monarchs lose support, it's inevitable that they'll be gone. And the fact that they don't just stand down after a fixed period means that they have a lot more to lose for thier indisgressions.

I think that before the Brits give up the monarchy completely, the next King or Queen should invest all that money they're getting agressively. Make the monarchy powerful for reasons that go beyond being official head of state. Knight people with actual tactical skill. I doubt Bill Gates and Paul McCartney are enough to stop a rebelion against the crown. Become a true world force. It would be excelent.

I say yes. Give 'em the boot. I mean come on, why should we the hard-working citizens of Great Britain pay for the upkeep of Fascist pigs like Prince Philip? After we get rid of them we can start calling ourselves a true democracy instead of a 'Constitutional Monarchy'.
I agree. If Thatcher wanted to cut taxes she should have privatised the monarchy, not dentistry.

I am curious, not being from the U.K. I know crap-all about the British monarchy. Could someone tell me, just how much real-world political power the Queen actually has? I was always under the impression that she was pretty much a figurehead?

I am curious, not being from the U.K. I know crap-all about the British monarchy. Could someone tell me, just how much real-world political power the Queen actually has? I was always under the impression that she was pretty much a figurehead?

She's completely a figurehead. It's true that the Prime Minister goes to the Queen to accept the position, or resign, but that's just a formality, a legal anachronism. If the Queen, for whatever reason, decided to try and interfere in politics (she might well have the theoretical power to dissolve the government, mouldering away on the law books) she'd quite quickly discover just how powerless she is. Someone mentioned further up the thread about knighting, but she doesn't even have any control over that. The gov't gives her a list of people. (quite a scandal about that at the moment, actually. Corruption. What a surprise)

She's a symbol, I guess. They put her on stamps. (Charles on stamps? That's a scary thought...) The Royal Family supply gossip for tabloids and meet the odd dignitry.


Personally I don't see the point of them, and I very much dislike the fact that they live in palaces and stately homes while even our highest elected officials live in ordinary houses. Big, fancy, perhaps luxurious, but still ordinary. Plus, they hunt. Who hunts in this day and age?

I am curious, not being from the U.K. I know crap-all about the British monarchy. Could someone tell me, just how much real-world political power the Queen actually has? I was always under the impression that she was pretty much a figurehead?
Theoretically, total power. A reason to support their continued existence is to prevent a party along the lines of the Nazis gaining power. In theory the monarch can veto any legislation, technically people are "recommended" to her to be honoured, plus alot of other nifty powers.

In practice, very little, goes through ceremonies, meets other heads of state, basically fulfills the duties of a head of state.


some of them hunt some of them don't. As for how many people do, given the large number of protests about it apparently quite a few.


Ordinary houses? wtf. Chequers and Number 10 for example are nowhere near ordinary houses.

Look, If I went 'round sayin' that I was an emporer just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!