Calling for abolition of monarchy is still illegal, UK justice ministry admits - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Vasili;43177560]or picking up a deer you hit with your car, but the second passer can legally.[/QUOTE] I always found that kind of funny. I think it's supposed to stop you from ramming them intentionally then eating them, but surely no-one is going to want to bang up their car so much by hitting a deer, and you could always tag team the deer with a friend...

[QUOTE=Morgen;43178944]The monarchy brings a massive amount of tourism to England. The economic benefits of having them probably far outweigh what we spend on them.[/QUOTE] so what? france gets more income than us through tourists looking at the remnants of their nobility also, before CGP Grey's video is posted, here is a response to it: [video=youtube;_2IO5ifWKdw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw[/video] CGP Grey skims the surface and fails to provide a proper analysis and infact, some of what CGP shows and says is actual nonsense

[QUOTE=Morgen;43178944]The monarchy brings a massive amount of tourism to England. The economic benefits of having them probably far outweigh what we spend on them.[/QUOTE] There is absolutely no evidence to support this. The true cost of the monarchy is somewhere around 200 million pounds a year. That's 10 times the amount the Irish pay for their presidency. Not to mention the potential lost taxes from the duchies. In a recent study, of the top 20 tourist destinations in the UK, there was only one royal site on that list at it was placed at number 17 out of 20. Saying people come to Britain to see the royal family is rediculous, we have plenty to offer to visitors without defining ourselves by an ancient system of heraldic welfare sponges. You don't visit japan to see the emperor. People in this country view the monarchy as a touchy subject and anyone questioning is imediately regarded as un-British but we need to start talking about it. [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] Also, commonwealth countries, I like you and all. But you need to start paying for your own heads of state :v:.

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;43179011]There is absolutely no evidence to support this. The true cost of the monarchy is somewhere around 200 million pounds a year. That's 10 times the amount the Irish pay for their presidency. Not to mention the potential lost taxes from the duchies. In a recent study, of the top 20 tourist destinations in the UK, there was only one royal site on that list at it was placed at number 17 out of 20. Saying people come to Britain to see the royal family is rediculous, we have plenty to offer to visitors without defining ourselves by an ancient system of heraldic welfare sponges. You don't visit japan to see the emperor. People in this country view the monarchy as a touchy subject and anyone questioning is imediately regarded as un-British but we need to start talking about it. [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] Also, commonwealth countries, I like you and all. But you need to start paying for your own heads of state :v:.[/QUOTE] I think we should stop viewing the monarchy purely in terms of money. It may be expensive, but it's also one of those things that makes us who we are: we've had a monarchy ever since we were just England (barring that little blip with Cromwell) and we haven't had a turbulent relationship with our nobles like most of Europe. Like fish and chips, double-decker buses and red phone boxes (many of which have still been left up despite costing a lot and being pretty obsolete) the monarchy is an important part of our cultural identity and throwing it out just because it costs a lot is pretty heartless. In addition, the royal family (and by extension, the nobility) is a link with history that is pretty fuckin' rad. Charities like the National Trust can't afford to maintain all the stately homes, gardens and parks that are already kept by the nobility and the monarchy, and I've seen what happens when such places fall into the hands of private owners and other groups. The upper classes keep their houses and gardens and open them up to the public, places like Longleat, Berkley Castle, Warwick Castle and countless other historical buildings are the private homes of noble families whose members have owned those places for generations, and there's something incredibly powerful about going to one of those places that still functions as it used to, not just as a walled-off tourist attraction with no character. Lots of paintings and sculptures that, without members of the nobility, would be hidden in a private collection, are visible for the public because of generous aristocrats. [t]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/11/article-2002435-0C8389A300000578-389_634x424.jpg[/t] And look at all the people that still like that part of our national identity, that part of our culture, that enjoy the sense of pride at our foibles and indulgences that distinguish us from the rest of the boring republics. It's a national togetherness that surpasses that ugly brand of flag-based nationalism (e.g. America) and is altogether much more fun for everyone. [QUOTE=Camundongo;43178940]That law has now been taken off the statute books, along with a load of the older odd laws, happened back in 2006 I think. That was also when they took the death penalty off the three remaining crimes that carried it (high treason, piracy and arson of a royal dockyard), even though the death penatly had already been outlawed.[/QUOTE] Oh really? I should stop wheeling that anecdote out.

Why get rid of a major charity contributor and tourist attraction? Only angsty teens want to get rid of the monarchy because of their down with the system attitude and often spout "muh taxes" despite it being on average about 2P per person.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;43179006]so what? france gets more income than us through tourists looking at the remnants of their nobility also, before CGP Grey's video is posted, here is a response to it: [video=youtube;_2IO5ifWKdw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw[/video] CGP Grey skims the surface and fails to provide a proper analysis and infact, some of what CGP shows and says is actual nonsense[/QUOTE] my favourite video

[QUOTE=redback3;43177498]This is also the same country which can arrest you if you don't have a bale of hay in the back of your car[/QUOTE] This sound like this could be abused if you piss off a cop. Like, couldn't he just arrest you over a personal vendetta and cite the ancient law as reasoning for it?

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;43179723] Arguement for [/QUOTE] Alright then, instead of money lets talk morals, I understand that you feel it is part of our national heritage and I agree with you there, but the monarchy belongs in the past along with all other forms of hereditary power. I don't like the idea of the Windor's defining this nation like so many other Britons do, we have had scores of brilliant, wonderful people from this island along with some excellent natural beauty spots and sights to see, we're a lot more complicated and quite frankly [I]better[/I] than just the queen and red post boxes. The reigning monarch is also the de facto head of our national religion (which we shouldn't have anymore, we take the piss out of the USA constantly for religious zeal yet we still have the CoE). We do have lots of lovely historic landmarks in this country yes, but look at France, they ousted their aristocracy and the Louvre ( a former palace) alone brings in $170,000,000 annually. The royals live in Buckingham palace which is quite quickly falling down and in need of constant repair, meanwhile the tower of london which was vacated by the monarchy ages ago is in top nick and see's millions of people a year. So called "noble" families will still retain their ownership of whatever property they have, as it's theirs, they bought and paid for it and the tourism will still flow. I'm fully confident tourism in this country will stay the same when we become a republic. You say republics are boring, want to know the best example of a Republic? Switzerland, and I'd say they're doing pretty damn fine. I don't believe in an institutionalised class system like we have here, everyone should be born equal and not just given heaps of land and money for something they haven't earned. At it's most basic level does it not bother you that someone feels entitled to call you their King or Queen for no reason other than by accident of birth? The aristocracy has systematically accumulated power through the generations by making people believe they're better than the commoners and people still in this day and age just lie down and take it, when in actual fact they're no different to you and I just with a few more webbed toes and haemophilia. This is 2013 and we need to have the right to chose our own head of state through democratic process. We laugh at N Korea for having a hereditary head of state but we've got the exact same antiquated system. Not to mention they still lord over India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and all the other commonwealth countries, shouldn't they have a say? Apologies for the disjointed reply, just got back from work. [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Midas22;43179742]Why get rid of a major charity contributor and tourist attraction? Only angsty teens want to get rid of the monarchy because of their down with the system attitude and often spout "muh taxes" despite it being on average about 2P per person.[/QUOTE] They're not a major tourist attraction and where do you think they get their money from to give to charity in the first place? Also in your eyes is anyone who wants a full democracy an angsty teen? What is wrong with wanting change, I suppose we should just sit down shut up and get on with it, nothing will ever change huh?

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;43179723]I think we should stop viewing the monarchy purely in terms of money. It may be expensive, but it's also one of those things that makes us who we are: we've had a monarchy ever since we were just England (barring that little blip with Cromwell) and we haven't had a turbulent relationship with our nobles like most of Europe. Like fish and chips, double-decker buses and red phone boxes (many of which have still been left up despite costing a lot and being pretty obsolete) the monarchy is an important part of our cultural identity and throwing it out just because it costs a lot is pretty heartless. [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition[/url]

Wow people get life imprisonment if they advocate abolition of monarchy. I wonder if people can at least talk about it?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43180967][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition[/URL][/QUOTE] Just because it can be a falacy doesn't mean its not a valid thing to say. There is no [I]real[/I] reason for scrapping the monarchy. Just as there is no real reason for having one. If it does no harm why throw out tradition? It is nice to think that there is tradition and culture going back hundreds of years. [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] Also clearly the best reason to keep the monarch is the fact that all British passports has the following paragraph on the first page which sounds slightly bad ass. [quote] Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary [/quote] [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Beerminator;43181127]Wow people get life imprisonment if they advocate abolition of monarchy. I wonder if people can at least talk about it?[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone has actually been charged with this for hundreds of years. There are people who quite openly call for the removal of the monarchy.

[QUOTE=Jsm;43181134]Just because it can be a falacy doesn't mean its not a valid thing to say. There is no [I]real[/I] reason for scrapping the monarchy. Just as there is no real reason for having one. If it does no harm why throw out tradition? It is nice to think that there is tradition and culture going back hundreds of years. [/QUOTE] it depends on what the symbolism of the monarchy represents to the people. it also depends on whether the monarchy costs british taxpayers money. according to that cgp grey video, the british actually make money from monarchy. according to rebuttals, grey's analysis didn't actually explain the whole story. i like the idea of a monarchy that simply exists to give taxpayers money. it turns the whole idea of having a queen into a sort of circus show or zoo. she's something for all the tourists to gawk at and spend loads of money while inhabiting a position that used to be conferred a ton of political power. it's ironic and symbolizes the progress made as a society. but if she costs the taxpayers money then she is more of a symbol of wasteful extravagance that everyone else needs to pay for because "muh traditions".

[QUOTE=Jsm;43181134]Just because it can be a falacy doesn't mean its not a valid thing to say. There is no [I]real[/I] reason for scrapping the monarchy. Just as there is no real reason for having one. If it does no harm why throw out tradition? It is nice to think that there is tradition and culture going back hundreds of years. [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] Also clearly the best reason to keep the monarch is the fact that all British passports has the following paragraph on the first page which sounds slightly bad ass. [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] I don't think anyone has actually been charged with this for hundreds of years. There are people who quite openly call for the removal of the monarchy.[/QUOTE] So having a full democracy means nothing to you? They actually do harm, charles is a corrupt moron who has many fingers in many pies and uses the power given to him by accident of birth to do so. At the end of the day monarchy is a system of government, and what do you do with a useless section of government, you don't keep it for sentimental value, you close it down don't you? Like I said earlier we have plenty more than some old lady in a big house to be proud of in this country. They actively take money from the British people and in my eyes they have done nothing to deserve it, we could pay for 8000 new nurses a year with the money we give to the windsors. However, money is a secondary arguement for me, my primary motivation for my republican views is a full democracy should be the right of everyone. Not to mention we don't have a constitution in this country, only an implied one. [editline]14th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43181224]it depends on what the symbolism of the monarchy represents to the people. it also depends on whether the monarchy costs british taxpayers money. according to that cgp grey video, the british actually make money from monarchy. according to rebuttals, grey's analysis didn't actually explain the whole story. i like the idea of a monarchy that simply exists to give taxpayers money. it turns the whole idea of having a queen into a sort of circus show or zoo. she's something for all the tourists to gawk at and spend loads of money while inhabiting a position that used to be conferred a ton of political power. it's ironic and symbolizes the progress made as a society. but if she costs the taxpayers money then she is more of a symbol of wasteful extravagance that everyone else needs to pay for because "muh traditions".[/QUOTE] Muh traditions is pretty much the only arguement any royalist can actually come up with.

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;43181230]So having a full democracy means nothing to you? They actually do harm, charles is a corrupt moron who has many fingers in many pies and uses the power given to him by accident of birth to do so. At the end of the day monarchy is a system of government, and what do you do with a useless section of government, you don't keep it for sentimental value, you close it down don't you? Like I said earlier we have plenty more than some old lady in a big house to be proud of in this country. They actively take money from the British people and in my eyes they have done nothing to deserve it, we could pay for 8000 new nurses a year with the money we give to the windsors. However, money is a secondary arguement for me, my primary motivation for my republican views is a full democracy should be the right of everyone. Not to mention we don't have a constitution in this country, only an implied one.[/QUOTE] even if the monarchy was abolished you could still keep around all those old-timey buildings and jewelry and bullshit for museums and educational purposes. you could also award the crown to a random mp each time parliament is in session. they get to be called "your highness" for the entirety of the session. that would be a lot of fun and might make politics slightly more interesting. not that british parliament is quite as painfully boring as the american congress.

I think Americans would actually be more upset about the removal of the monarchy than the British.

[QUOTE=Jsm;43181134]Just because it can be a falacy doesn't mean its not a valid thing to say. There is no [I]real[/I] reason for scrapping the monarchy. Just as there is no real reason for having one. If it does no harm why throw out tradition? It is nice to think that there is tradition and culture going back hundreds of years. [/QUOTE] If it's a fallacy then it is exactly not a valid thing to say. That's why it's a [I]fallacy[/I]. I don't care whether it's pro- or anti- monarchy, it's a dumb argument because it's a fallacy.

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;43181230]So having a full democracy means nothing to you? They actually do harm, charles is a corrupt moron who has many fingers in many pies and uses the power given to him by accident of birth to do so. At the end of the day monarchy is a system of government, and what do you do with a useless section of government, you don't keep it for sentimental value, you close it down don't you? Like I said earlier we have plenty more than some old lady in a big house to be proud of in this country. They actively take money from the British people and in my eyes they have done nothing to deserve it, we could pay for 8000 new nurses a year with the money we give to the windsors. However, money is a secondary arguement for me, my primary motivation for my republican views is a full democracy should be the right of everyone. Not to mention we don't have a constitution in this country, only an implied one. [/QUOTE] I'm just going to say one thing before I reply to this post properly. I hate the argument of "could have paid for X nurses / schools / homes for homeless children etc". I know you probably mean well but it just sounds like something from the daily mail. They aren't part of the government, the second they actually attempt to be part of the government they would cease to have power so fast. As for not doing anything, they are probably the most charitable people in the UK both in terms of money given and money raised through being the public image of many charities. As for being a full democracy, this country has so many more problems with the way we elect people and change laws that if people want to get rid of the monarchy to improve democracy they should tackle all of the other problems. Using the monarch as a distraction is terrible. We have a government that was barely elected and since being in power has prevented proper discussion of changing the voting system (by spreading what amounts to lies during the AV referendum) to a more fair system. They also wish to change the boundaries of constituencies to benefit themselves. And that's before you take into account the general corruption, lies, theft and lobbying that takes place under in the name of democracy. Maybe we should deal with these problems before we try and become a republic to enable full democracy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43181312]If it's a fallacy then it is exactly not a valid thing to say. That's why it's a [I]fallacy[/I]. I don't care whether it's pro- or anti- monarchy, it's a dumb argument because it's a fallacy.[/QUOTE] his argument isn't really an "appeal to tradition" because an appeal to tradition involves justifying an argument because it is "the way it is and has been". it's assuming the premise is right because it has history with it. his argument isn't that having a monarchy is nice simply because it always has been there, his argument is that the tradition itself is beneficial to society for w/e reason(to him, because it's "nice"). he may be right or wrong, but the argument itself isn't fallacious. it's just lacking any supporting evidence concerning why the tradition is beneficial. the tradition isn't evidence in this case, it's the part of the thesis. it's incomplete, "this tradition is nice because..."

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43181312]If it's a fallacy then it is exactly not a valid thing to say. That's why it's a [I]fallacy[/I]. I don't care whether it's pro- or anti- monarchy, it's a dumb argument because it's a fallacy.[/QUOTE] that's not really what the argument for tradition is. If they were arguing that we should keep the monarchy solely because its traditional then it would. However arguing that we should keep them as a historical set piece of our country is completely valid. The argument for tradition fits more with stuff like "we should keep the death penalty because its our tradition" than stuff like this. Personally I don't mind the monarchy, they don't cause any trouble and have no real influence on our lives other than being there and holding the odd celebration. On the other hand there are harmful traditions that do need to go, such as the setup of the house of lords with bishops being in parliament, our Constituency based First past the post voting system that prevents proper representation, along with things that are flat out inefficient such as parliament voting via I's and No's rather than using an electronic voting system.

unless he is justifying the tradition simply because it is a tradition. that would be a "circular reasoning" fallacy though, not an "appeal to tradition".

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43181259]even if the monarchy was abolished you could still keep around all those old-timey buildings and jewelry and bullshit for museums and educational purposes. you could also award the crown to a random mp each time parliament is in session. they get to be called "your highness" for the entirety of the session. that would be a lot of fun and might make politics slightly more interesting. not that british parliament is quite as painfully boring as the american congress.[/QUOTE] I think we should replace that ornate mace we keep in the Palace of Westminster with a set of inflatable mallets, and allow MPs and the Lords to use it to beat the opposition.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43181362]that's not really what the argument for tradition is. If they were arguing that we should keep the monarchy solely because its traditional then it would. However arguing that we should keep them as a historical set piece of our country is completely valid. The argument for tradition fits more with stuff like "we should keep the death penalty because its our tradition" than stuff like this. Personally I don't mind the monarchy, they don't cause any trouble and have no real influence on our lives other than being there and holding the odd celebration. On the other hand there are harmful traditions that do need to go, [B]such as the setup of the house of lords with bishops being in parliament[/B], our Constituency based First past the post voting system that prevents proper representation, along with things that are flat out inefficient such as parliament voting via I's and No's rather than using an electronic voting system.[/QUOTE] Oh you just reminded me of the one thing I forgot in my post. The fact we are pretty much the only country in the world (bar a few [I]real[/I] dictatorships) that has an unelected legislative house that can actually change and prevent laws.

Well I think we should abolish the monarchy, bring Cromwell back from the dead, then invade Ireland.

[QUOTE=tr00per7;43181399]Well I think we should abolish the monarchy, bring Cromwell back from the dead, then invade Ireland.[/QUOTE] Only if we also invade France.

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;43180898]They're not a major tourist attraction and where do you think they get their money from to give to charity in the first place? Also in your eyes is anyone who wants a full democracy an angsty teen? What is wrong with wanting change, I suppose we should just sit down shut up and get on with it, nothing will ever change huh?[/QUOTE] Not a tourist attraction? I suppose selling those TV rights to the royal wedding which 2 billion people watched didn't create much revenue not to mention that the 600,000 people who came for the wedding didn't spend any money during their stay either, or all that cringe commemorative cutlery people don't buy, or the pictures never purchased, or going to see the Crown Jewels which is always empty, or paying to enter other royal establishments which are never used. Yeah, no tourism or profits. Absolutely none. Where do they get the money for charity? From the money people willingly give when they host the events or turn up to others probably. Not to mention their diplomat work and foreign relations they maintain in the colonies and other countries.

[QUOTE=Jsm;43181390]Oh you just reminded me of the one thing I forgot in my post. The fact we are pretty much the only country in the world (bar a few [I]real[/I] dictatorships) that has an unelected legislative house that can actually change and prevent laws.[/QUOTE] Nah theres a load of Scandinavian countries that also have kings and queens. I think Belgium does as well. Oh and Japan apparently has an Emperor, which is pretty awesome to be honest. Edit: Oh sorry thought you meant the executive

[QUOTE=Jsm;43181390]Oh you just reminded me of the one thing I forgot in my post. The fact we are pretty much the only country in the world (bar a few [I]real[/I] dictatorships) that has an unelected legislative house that can actually change and prevent laws.[/QUOTE] that's not totally true. in the usa lobbyists are unelected and are a very strong part of the legislative process. they write laws and have a lot of influence in preventing or changing laws going through the process. the whole democracy/authoritarianism thing is sorta a spectrum, not a binary. unelected special interest groups or officials play a part in most(if not all) governments. the question is: "to what extent do unelected officials have power in this particular system"? your legal system explicitly states that unelected people have a certain power over law. our legal system in the usa doesn't explicitly state that, but unelected officials are institutionalized through legal precedent.

[QUOTE=Morgen;43178944]The monarchy brings a massive amount of tourism to England. The economic benefits of having them probably far outweigh what we spend on them.[/QUOTE] why are people disagreeing with this? The monarchy indirectly makes hundreds of millions of pounds in tourism for the country. And in taxes, we spend about 0.07p (iirc) per pound on their upkeep

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43181259]even if the monarchy was abolished you could still keep around all those old-timey buildings and jewelry and bullshit for museums and educational purposes. you could also award the crown to a random mp each time parliament is in session. they get to be called "your highness" for the entirety of the session. that would be a lot of fun and might make politics slightly more interesting. not that british parliament is quite as painfully boring as the american congress.[/QUOTE] King of america would be a badass name to hold.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;43181755]King of america would be a badass name to hold.[/QUOTE] Play Ben There, Dan That to see the King of America.