Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Thankyou Prince Charles!

10
 
On 6 Feb 2014 at 3:56pm Rosiecheeks wrote:
After Prince Charles visited the Somerset Levels, he donated , I think, £50 grand to help these unlucky people. This has now shamed the government to follow suit and donate also. When you think what they they have sent abroad, £600 million to Syria and god knows how much to bogus schools in Pakistan, its about time OUR flood victims had help aswell,, after all charity begins at home!
1
9
On 6 Feb 2014 at 5:54pm Clifford wrote:
And that £50,000 came from where? Either from his interitance from what was stolen from our ancestors; or from our taxes. And then he went home and dressed for dinner in his pretend-Field Marshal, pretend-Air Marshal or pretend-Admiral uniform...
2
 
On 6 Feb 2014 at 6:12pm tom wrote:
Well said Rosiecheeks . people in this wet land need help now .
 
 
On 6 Feb 2014 at 6:16pm Rosiecheeks wrote:
You obviously hate the royals Clifford. But it worked, it got the government moving. And the money all comes from us. Better it spent here.
2
3
On 6 Feb 2014 at 7:40pm bastian wrote:
Hit the nail on the head again clifford, it's never popular. The money the government is pledging is finger in the dyke money. That won't pay for anything much. We have to stop buildin gon the flood plains.
 
7
On 7 Feb 2014 at 2:22am The Voice of Reason wrote:
Anyone who thinks charity begins at home has never looked the word up in a dictionary.
Selfishness and greed is what starts at home, charity is the exact opposite.
I'm all for sympathy to the Somerset Levellers but lets stop sucking up to Charlie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg for magnaminously giving away a share of the £36 million pocket money we all have to work hard to earn for him.
 
 
On 7 Feb 2014 at 7:55am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
"Selfishness and greed is what starts at home, charity is the exact opposite."
Sums it up very well, TVOR. And what does it say about the government, that they've ignored the problem for 6 weeks and only start to stump up some cash because some chinless inbred shames them into it. They obviously think more of him than they do of the hundreds of "ordinary" people who've been enduring this day in, day out.
I feel so sorry for the farmers and their animals. Heartbreaking to see all the stock being moved away last night.
2
1
On 7 Feb 2014 at 10:14am Clifford wrote:
Rosiecheeks wrote: 'You obviously hate the royals Clifford.'

It's more mature not to think in terms of 'hate' and 'love' when it comes to constitutional matters, Rosie. I consider an hereditary monarchy an anachronism in what is supposed to be a democracy. You obviously believe differently.
2
2
On 7 Feb 2014 at 3:02pm Badger wrote:
Anyone seen any sanctimoniousness on the forum recently...?
 
 
On 7 Feb 2014 at 6:22pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
Clifford is right - the monarchy is an anachronism, but curiously some of the most socially advanced countries have one - Denmark, Sweden, Netherland etc, while the most despotic reguimes are usually 'democratic republics'. Rationally, I know that a monarchy is absurd in the 21st century, but I also feel relieved that this ridiculous institutiuon keeps a check on our self-serving politicians. I'd far prefer an incorruptible queen or prince who is motivated by a sense of duty than someone like Tony Blair or Mrs Thatcher as the head of state.
 
 
On 7 Feb 2014 at 6:24pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
Sorry, it should read 'regimes' and 'Netherlands'.
1
1
On 7 Feb 2014 at 7:06pm Clifford wrote:
One thing you forget, Earl of Lewes, is that we can vote against Blair or Thatcher. We can't vote against whoever just happens to have popped out of the womb first. What 'duty' is it the monarch is motivated by?
3
1
On 8 Feb 2014 at 8:26am A little bit thick wrote:
A well-formed and literate post is criticised by someone who does't even have a grasp of the meaning of the word they use.

Sanctimonious: 'making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness, etc.'
2
1
On 8 Feb 2014 at 10:33am Earl of Lewes wrote:
Clifford - We can vote against Blair or Thatcher, but they are simply replaced by someone similar - Brown or Major - and nothing changes. Our democracy is largely an illusion.
The Queen has completed over 15,000 engagements since 1984. She and Charles may be absurdly wealthy, but most of their time is spent performing duties that range from the mildly interesting to the mind-numbingly tedious. I wouldn't swap with them. Our monarchs' sense of duty is instilled in them from early childhood and they are patently aware that this is the only real justification for their position.
The idea of a republic may appeal, but the reality - France, Italy, the USA or, moving down the scale, Russia, is less appealing.
1
1
On 8 Feb 2014 at 9:43pm Rosiecheeks wrote:
What a sanctimonious bunch you are. All I stated was that it took a royal to make the government wake up and give us aid. Aid that is so freely given abroad willy nilly and squandered, money that we have worked for, taken off us in taxes, that we have no say in. All those poor people, that have lost homes, animals and their livelihoods, they deserve out taxes.
1
 
On 9 Feb 2014 at 7:30pm An Unlikely Argument wrote:
I think, all you people who moan about our Royal Family, should get a tax rebate for the amount that goes towards paying for them. If you don't want them, why should you be paying for them?
Those of us that think they're really great will gladly pay more taxes to keep them in clover. In fact, we could club together and give them another pay rise. They only had one single massive pay rise last year.
How about good people of Lewes? Who's with me?
 
1
On 9 Feb 2014 at 8:36pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
And what's your alternative, An Unlikely Argument? I'd love to read your utopian vision.
1
1
On 9 Feb 2014 at 8:55pm An Unlikely Argument wrote:
My Utopian vision, as if it wasn't clear enough, is to have a royal family paid only by us that want one. That way, people that don't want one, don't have to pay for it.
1
 
On 9 Feb 2014 at 11:45pm Rods Tiger wrote:
Does that work for people who don't want street lights too ?
1
1
On 10 Feb 2014 at 12:17am An Unlikely Argument wrote:
Presumably yes, aren't we supposed to be moving towards a 'user-pays' taxation philosophy?
1
1
On 10 Feb 2014 at 10:16am Clifford wrote:
Rosiecheeks wrote: 'All those poor people, that have lost homes, animals and their livelihoods, they deserve out taxes.'

Have to agree with you there Rosie. Let's stop wasting our tax money on a parasitic royal family.
 
2
On 10 Feb 2014 at 2:58pm Badger wrote:
Dear 'A little bit thick'
According to my 2012 edition of the OED, which I have just opened up in front of me to check, 'sanctimonious' has the following definition:
"making a show of being morally superior to other people."
Perhaps your dictionary is a little out of date (i.e. from the 17th century perhaps)?
It was an entirely appropriate word to use in this thread.


15 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Lewes Crest 66:132
Lewes Crest

I recently ran into a bit of a dilemma at my shop and thought my experience might be helpful for anyone in a similar situation.... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell