BBC Vs THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

Originally posted by Yegorovnam
reply to post by Lagrimas

 

The BBC programme Mock the Week, used to regularly ridicule the Royal Family, by having Hugh Dennis speaking over footage of the Royal Family and imagining the things that they could be saying. He portrayed the Duke of Edinburgh as a racist!

To be fair, these are all actually things he has said.

• During a state visit to China in 1986, the duke told a group of British students: “If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.”

• Another jab to the Chinese came at a World Wildlife Fund dinner: “If it swims and it’s not a submarine, the Chinese will eat it.”

• To an Australian Aborigine he met in 2002, Philip asked: “Still throwing spears?”

• When a Kenyan woman gave Philip a gift, he was perplexed at her appearance. “You’re a woman, aren’t you?” he asked.

• When he met Lord Taylor of Warwick, who is black and comes from Birmingham, “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”

• When he saw an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh, the duke said: “It looks as if it was put in by an Indian.”

• When he met a group of deaf people in Cardiff in1999, Philip referred to the school’s steel band: “Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf.”

• “Aren’t most of you descended from pirates?” Philip asked someone from the Cayman Islands in 1994.

• When he met the president of Nigeria, who was dressed in a traditional robe, Philip said: “You look like you’re ready for bed!”

www.thedailybeast.com...

Meh, anyway. Maybe the beeb are just catching up with modern sentiment that the Royals are useless, outdated and not wanted.
Vilify away I say.

reply to post by Lagrimas


The BBC aren't doing anything other than reporting news.

An Informal tribunal was demanding the data, NOT the BBC.
From what I can gather, they have not received and environmental report which the Prince is obliged to give as the area is regarded as a conservation area designed to protect native species.

As for the norovirus, it's the Food Standards Agency that released the report on that, the BBC merely reported it.
They (FSA) are suggesting vulnerable groups avoid oysters and other foods they have found contain this bug.

I would suggest you re-read thoroughly the articles on the BBC website as I get the feeling you have misunderstood what has been said.

Either way, don't blame the BBC for simply reporting the activities of other parties.

First of all, the Duchy of Cornwall isn't Charles personal land, it is merely there to give the Heir apparent an income (as he gets nothing from the State) until he ascends the Throne, at which point it passes to his heir, or in the abscence of an heir, it passes to the Crown Estate, which is the Government, until such an heir is produced.

Secondly, even if he has brought the same "species" of oyster, has he done a proper study to determine if there will be an impact. Also, they may not be identical, as there can be regional variations within a species.

Thirdly, no, the BBC are not after the Royals. In fact, they are quite often pro-Royal with their coverage.. Seems to me that you're quite hot under the collar over what is a non-issue, really. I mean, I am pro-Royal, but I never saw this as an attack upon the Royals at all...

Ummm, I think you are "having it on" with us here and are speaking in an allegorical sense. Perhaps I am mistaken, and mean no offense, surely, but......

reply to post by pazcat


But who is turning people against the Royal Family, and why? (Assuming public opinion is anti-Royal, which I'm not sure it is)
As all ATSers know, the majority of people are 'sheeple', and their opinions are almost completely formed by what they are told, not by critical thinking.

reply to post by Yegorovnam


As far as I can tell nobody is turning people against the Royals. It's probably facts more than anything else.
I think common sense and the realisation that they are past their use by date and are a taxpayer drain is somewhat to do with anti-royal sentiment.

Like you say, you're not sure most people share that view and I think you are right about that, infact most polls show overwhelming support for the Royals but at the risk of using a most horrid term, it is the pro royal crowd who are the true 'Sheeple'. If anyone uses the slightest bit of critical thinking they would probably start critisizing the Royals too.

Originally posted by Lagrimas
reply to post by Swizzy

 

so why are they making up stories about our royals then, YOU MADE the POINT

IT IS TRIVIAL

The BBC are making the big deal here not me.

edit on 1-12-2011 by Lagrimas because: spelling

So I take it you didn't watch the Royal wedding , where the BBC was fawning and gushing over the Royals for a week. maybe you missed it?

His Royal Highness, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall imported non-native oysters, and used them to set up an oyster farm on protected land, without doing an environmental impact study as required by LAW.

Lets recap.

He imported non-native oysters - Bad #1.
He didn't do an environmental impact study. - Bad #2.
He set up his oyster farm on protected land. - Bad #3.

Now bad #3 is mitigated quite a bit by the fact that the land is already a historical oyster farm. However despite that, it is still a designated conservation zone which requires the protection of native oysters.

The fact that he is a member of the Royal Family of Windsor, has absolutely no bearing on the matter. He broke environmental protection rules in 3 distinct areas.

Or are you saying that he should be exempted from the rules, by virtue of being a member of the Windsor family?

From what i remember oysters are an aphrodisiac maybe thats the reason Charlie boy is breeding them, He is known for being abit of a lad so they say, and arnt oysters a good listener he maybe on to something here , IMHO..

reply to post by BMorris


Not that I am going to support the OP, but technically, any crime committed is prosecuted as Defendant vs The Crown. Now, taking that to it's theoretical logical conclusion, the Queen cannot be prosecuted for any crime, as she cannot try herself. One wonders then if "she" would prosecute her son?

Now, I know in the real world, the above would never happen, but technically she can (and by extension she can allow anyone else to) avoid prosecution for offences committed.

It might be 'his land', a fact I would strongly disagree with btw, but if what he is doing is effecting the environment beyond 'his land', then what he is doing should be stopped.

This excuse of, 'I own it so I should be able to do what I want with it, regardless of the effects on others', is what is wrong in this world.

Freedom should not be selfish desires overriding the freedoms of others.

Private ownership is not freedom, it is the right by law to deny others theirs. Land should be communally owned.

Why does a Royal have to farm oysters in the first place? Unnecessary and irresponsible.

I advocate common ownership of all land, as it it our birthright imo. We shouldn't 'own' the land, but be trustees of it. It's use should be for the good of society, not private individuals. Land ownership, and ownership of the means of production in general, is what creates the hierarchical authoritarian, militaristic system we have. It's all to protect the rights of the private owner, but at the expense of those who do not, who can only make money by selling their labour and producing more than they are paid for. It's exploitation.

the BBC and the Royals aint too different, they both get taxpayers money and neither of them deserve it. as for it being 'his' land he was just fortunate enough to be born with a huge silver spoon in his mouth, like most huge land owners

reply to post by ANOK


Wow, I thought you guys all died out 20 years ago, but looks like the lesser-spotted Communist is far from extinct!

Sorry mate, I don't agree. If I own my house and the land around, I'll be buggered if some aging hippy is going to set up camp in my garden and say "You can't, like, own the land, man". I can and my boot up your arse says I will.

That said, I agree with your point that merely because it is private land, doesn't mean he can do as he likes.

reply to post by ANOK


Oh, what's wrong with him farming Oysters?

Or anything for that matter. At least he is putting the land to work, providing jobs and boosting the local economy.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ANOK

 

Wow, I thought you guys all died out 20 years ago, but looks like the lesser-spotted Communist is far from extinct!

I am not a communist, I consider myself a 'libertarian socialist'. But we're all just reds under your bed?

Sorry mate, I don't agree. If I own my house and the land around, I'll be buggered if some aging hippy is going to set up camp in my garden and say "You can't, like, own the land, man". I can and my boot up your arse says I will.

No need to apologize, I hardly expected anything different. Under common land law, if you use the land you are on, you justify your existence on it, it's yours. Your house and the land you live on is yours. If you do not use the land, you can lose it if it is needed by the community, for the benefit of the community (that includes you). This keeps 'private owners' from buying land that was used to feed the locals, in order to raise cattle for McDonald's etc. Or raise (?) oysters for? Swingers? To feed the starving millions?

That said, I agree with your point that merely because it is private land, doesn't mean he can do as he likes.

I'm glad, a lot of people seem to have the opposite view. Those that think freedom comes with no responsibilities.

reply to post by Lagrimas



I gotta say im not a fan of the bbc. Im also not a fan of the royals, They cost to much to keep. Wouldn't mind getting rid of both.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ANOK

 

Oh, what's wrong with him farming Oysters?

Or anything for that matter. At least he is putting the land to work, providing jobs and boosting the local economy.

He is not providing 'jobs', he is exploiting labour. If those that are working on that land owned it, instead of our prince, then they would be far better off. In order for our prince to make money from that land, his workers have to produce more than he pays them for. If the workers owned the land they would earn for what they produced, not a small percentage of it. That is money spread around to more people, that is what is meant by redistribution of wealth.

That is how it used to be in Britain. Before Feudalism there was the Teutonic system which had very limited private ownership, and land was owned in common. With Feudalism came 'liberty of alienation', the law that allowed land to be transferred from one party to another. The start of capitalist, private ownership of the means of production, exploitation of labour.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Lagrimas

 

I gotta say im not a fan of the bbc. Im also not a fan of the royals, They cost to much to keep. Wouldn't mind getting rid of both.

>Groan<

I seem to have to explain this every week...

The Royals cost nothing. Only the Queen and her consort get money from the Civil List, which historically, the Monarchy exchanged with the State for the entire Crown estate.

The Civil List costs around £40 a year and covers all expenses related to the Monarchy. The Crown Estate generate upwards of £400 million a year for the Treasury. Net result, the Royals don't cost a bean.

Just as a slight aside; pretty funny isn't it that people express concern etc about foreign animals / plants etc squeezing out and marginalising native species but if anyone dare express a similar sentiment about people then they are immediately demonised.

On topic, Charlie is a complete upper class oaf and is as out of touch with 'the people' as anyone could possibly be.
But I think he does have a passionate interest in environmental issues even if this is sometimes misguided or misplaced.
But who really cares about this?
I doubt very much he'll be making much money from it.
I can't see the problem.
Mountain and mole hill springs to mind.

As for the conspiracy?
Charlie, like his father, doesn't need any help making an idiot of himself.
The only angle that might be there is MSM trying to popularise the idea of William succeeding Lizzie rather than Charles.

reply to post by ANOK


I think you're a bit misty eyed here. Before feudalism,there was Anglo Saxon England, where there were most certainly private property rights. Prior to them were the Romans, who also definately had private property rights. I'd be interested to know exactly what period you're reffering to.

As for your "workers should own the means of production", well, that's been tried before and doesn't work out so well.

Under the system you advocate, it stiffles innovation, growth and engenders a slack work ethic, as there is no drive to improve as you can get away with not doing your work, others will pick up the slack and still get your reward at the end. Also, I would be interested to know how such a system could possibly work without anyone in charge, as there would have to be some kind of "management", regardless of ownership.

Under the system we have, yes, the worker only gets a small slice of the pie, but that can be affected by how much work you put in. I get good reviews at work, I get a bigger bonus and pay rise. Those who slack off don't. If you don't want to be beholden to someone else, then you go into business yourself, take the risk and reap the reward.