Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Extinction Rebellion

Cheesepig3

Cheese. Cheese. Cats.
the monarchy you swore an oath to defend- who gave them their authority? Was there a big meeting with a show of hands.

Errrm.... you don't actually believe that the royalty have anything resembling either authority or power, do you?

Anyhow, in taking that path I was quite clearly giving Her Maj, and 'er heirs and successors and the officers set over me, my authority to tell me what to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DotCommunist

slowtime
Errrm.... you don't actually believe that the royalty have anything resembling either authority or power, do you?

Anyhow, in taking that path I was quite clearly giving Her Maj, and 'er heirs and successors and the officers set over me, my authority to tell me what to do.
Then you'll be able to tell me what the legitimate procedure for forming a government without the crowns nod is? from where do the courts derive their legitimacy? I've never been prosecuted by The People here. Yes I'm aware that we live in a constitutional monarchy and parliament does the running of things. However the idea that a head of state, a hereditary monarch of Britain, has no sort of soft power at all is off. Is that the legitimacy? Because if the answer is no not really then its your first comment 'I'd be on the other side of the barricades'.
So the legitimacy of a state is bought with its ability to bring the pain at the end of the day.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
Errrm.... you don't actually believe that the royalty have anything resembling either authority or power, do you?

Anyhow, in taking that path I was quite clearly giving Her Maj, and 'er heirs and successors and the officers set over me, my authority to tell me what to do.
If they don't have authority or power what is the point of them? What's the point of giving them millions of pounds a year?
 

Cheesepig3

Cheese. Cheese. Cats.
Then you'll be able to tell me what the legitimate procedure for forming a government without the crowns nod is? from where do the courts derive their legitimacy? I've never been prosecuted by The People here. Yes I'm aware that we live in a constitutional monarchy and parliament does the running of things. However the idea that a head of state, a hereditary monarch of Britain, has no sort of soft power at all is off. Is that the legitimacy? Because if the answer is no not really then its your first comment 'I'd be on the other side of the barricades'.
So the legitimacy of a state is bought with its ability to bring the pain at the end of the day.

See above.


The monarchy is a political irrelevance, we all know it.
 

Celyn

Well-Known Member
Errrm.... you don't actually believe that the royalty have anything resembling either authority or power, do you?

Anyhow, in taking that path I was quite clearly giving Her Maj, and 'er heirs and successors and the officers set over me, my authority to tell me what to do.
Kill people. But only the people that Her Maj and dear old dead Sophia's heirs and successors tell you to.

Terrible tough job. Utterly beyond belief horrible. But you can not sign away your own morality.
 

Celyn

Well-Known Member
Yeah, but there's not going to be any non-democratic (lol, spellcheck wanted 'non-denominational) transfer of power in UK.

And if there is, or an attempt at one, I'll be on the other side of the barricades.

Just because we despise the contemptible toxic bastards who legitimately govern us, we don't get any moral right to force an improvement by violence.

Of course it all seems different when you're 17 or so.
I find your views interesting, but I am a bit confused by some bits.
Actually the whole thing. I wish not on phone cos I might be able to make more sense.

But in what way do the toxic bastards legitimally govern us? By what moral right? Glad they never got any of that power by violence though.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
if they live and breath and still own much of the land in the country, then they are hardly an irrelevance. fucking hell
The thinking is better saying they're an irrelevance and have them keep their heads than have people examine them and do unto the foul ersatz windsors what was done to the romanovs and bourbons
 

Cheesepig3

Cheese. Cheese. Cats.
Kill people. But only the people that Her Maj and dear old dead Sophia's heirs and successors tell you to.

Terrible tough job. Utterly beyond belief horrible. But you can not sign away your own morality.

Could not agree more. Nobody expects you to; quite the opposite.

Even old farts like me who joined in the 80s were given excellent training on law of armed conflict, the crux of which is "I was just following orders" isn't a good answer.

And in all honesty no, it's not utterly beyond belief horrible. Actually bits of it were, but there was achievement and also illustration of some extraordinarily fine human qualities.
 

Cheesepig3

Cheese. Cheese. Cats.
I find your views interesting, but I am a bit confused by some bits.
Actually the whole thing. I wish not on phone cos I might be able to make more sense.

But in what way do the toxic bastards legitimally govern us? By what moral right? Glad they never got any of that power by violence though.

By an imperfect democracy; that's the only legitimate source of authority.

It's crap, but they don't get it by violence.

I'm a reluctant supporter of our form of government, and I'd like a great many changes to it.

I'm actively hostile to any form of violent overthrow of the State as it currently is.
 

Cheesepig3

Cheese. Cheese. Cats.
Its only an irrelevance if we weren't discussing wider questions about power, legitimacy an the state. 'Authority is given'

They're irrelevant to a conversation about how authority or power may change hands.


I trust that you are aware of English history around where authority sat? Cromwell?
 

DotCommunist

slowtime
They're irrelevant to a conversation about how authority or power may change hands.
but we are talking about as an institution, the crown. And I wasn't addressing how power may change hands, I was questioning your post on legitimacy and authority.
an imperfect democracy; that's the only legitimate source of authority.
this makes it a little clearer, but where do you think the flaw is, could it be the massive undemocratic counterweight of old money and class which dominates all forms of civil service and public life, politics, law. The last PM was related to the queen, but y'know, irrelevance.
I trust that you are aware of English history around where authority sat? Cromwell?
They dug him him up and gave him a traitors death in the end
 

Celyn

Well-Known Member
Could not agree more. Nobody expects you to; quite the opposite.

Even old farts like me who joined in the 80s were given excellent training on law of armed conflict, the crux of which is "I was just following orders" isn't a good answer.

And in all honesty no, it's not utterly beyond belief horrible. Actually bits of it were, but there was achievement and also illustration of some extraordinarily fine human qualities.
Thanks for your kind reply there. Genuinely. And yes you might see the worst of people but also the best
 

yield

zero
The monarchy is a political irrelevance, we all know it.
How much land does the Royal Family actually own?
The bulk of the property owned by the Queen is held on her behalf by the Crown Estate, which operates as a real estate business and returns all of its profits to the Treasury, although the Queen then does receive a grant of 15 per cent of the total profits of the Estate from two years previous.

The group manages a property portfolio worth £12.4bn, and the latest available figures show that it delivered £329m to the Treasury for the 2015/2016 financial year.
Inside the British Monarchy's £13 billion property empire

A third of Britain STILL belongs to the aristocracy | Daily Mail Online
More than a third of Britain’s land is still in the hands of a tiny group of aristocrats, according to the most extensive ownership survey in nearly 140 years.

In a shock to those who believed the landed gentry were a dying breed, blue-blooded owners still control vast swathes of the country within their inherited estates.

A group of 36,000 individuals – only 0.6 per cent of the population – own 50 per cent of rural land.
Scotland has the most inequitable land ownership in the west. Why?
Land means power, so Scotland's few hundred aristocrats can scarcely be expected to give up on four centuries of owning more than half of the country.
 

not-bono-ever

They are ringing the bells now but soon...
The thinking is better saying they're an irrelevance and have them keep their heads than have people examine them and do unto the foul ersatz windsors what was done to the romanovs and bourbons
yeah but tourism/

the royals are in an extinction procreation death spiral atm- soon we will all be royals if their offspring output and mingling with the masses continues.
 

Cheesepig3

Cheese. Cheese. Cats.
but we are talking about as an institution, the crown.
Sorry, I joined the thread part through. I was hooking in to the riffs on seizing power 'n shit.

And I wasn't addressing how power may change hands, I was questioning your post on legitimacy and authority.
Ah but it was all mingled up. I'm very interested in legitimacy and authority, which are intricately bound up in the processes by which power and authority may change hands.
this makes it a little clearer, but where do you think the flaw is, could it be the massive undemocratic counterweight of old money and class which dominates all forms of civil service and public life, politics, law. The last PM was related to the queen, but y'know, irrelevance.

I think we'd agree that your list here at least makes a start on the flaws in our system.... you left out the media, unbalanced school curricula and grotesque differences in education generally by class, place and maybe race, and I suspect you, I and most posters here could go on and on.

They dug him him up and gave him a traitors death in the end

Not a bad idea... how long has Margaret been feeding worms?
 

Rob Ray

Irony is well sad
I've got a soft spot for James Butler because he's a lovely chap and often has interesting things to say even having jumped in the commentariat pond. But "have you considered becoming a Labour astroturf operation" is probably the worst ER hot take I've yet seen. The climate crisis demands more than blocking roads, Extinction Rebellion | James Butler

Don't get me wrong, ER has a lot to criticise. But its independence is not one of those things.
 

Mordi

Amoral adventurist
I've got a soft spot for James Butler because he's a lovely chap and often has interesting things to say even having jumped in the commentariat pond. But "have you considered becoming a Labour astroturf operation" is probably the worst ER hot take I've yet seen. The climate crisis demands more than blocking roads, Extinction Rebellion | James Butler

Don't get me wrong, ER has a lot to criticise. But its independence is not one of those things.
I agree, the Novara piece Miss-Shelf linked to earlier in the thread does a similar thing. Perfectly valid criticisms which somehow include the line "building popular power through trade unions, the Labour party and deep community organising.".

I think one of the advantages ER has is the sense of desperation that has no where else to go. Suggesting that a productive outlet for this is to go to local constituency meetings of a party that isn't even focused on the issue of climate change is distinctly short sighted.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
Depends who is doing the violence.

I've no problem with battering a copper who's overdoing it.

Who, exactly, are you categorising as ripe for a kicking/stabbing/bombing/shooting? How do you decide who receives the violence? By whose right?
so you're quite happy to decide who should get a twatting but less happy for other people to do the same. right.
 
Top