What day is Elizabeth visiting

REPSOC1916

andrew wrote: »

The orange marchers tried to march a few years ago and there was a full scale riot. So yep, people who hate Britain and the Queen with a firey passion do still exist. spas.

Firstly that march had nothing to do with the Orange Order - it was a Love Ulster parade organized by a man known as Willie Frazer who is head of a campaigns group called FAIR. Both are rather interesting groups. For a start FAIR recently had it's funding withdrawn from the E.U. due to what it described as "major failures in the organisation's ability to adhere to the conditions associated with its funding allocation". FAIR have also been criticized for solely representing the victims of Republican violence - it has never campaigned for victims of either loyalist paramilitaries or british state security. Frazer is another interesting fellow. In addition to having links with the Ku Klux Klan, he has ran on a number of occassions for a number of fringe loyalist groups and was refused a gun license because he was known to associate with loyalist paramilitaries.

Think it might be important to be in full possession of the facts, especially given the fact that you're a moderator.

Secondly the vast majority of people who rioted were not there for political reasons. It was mainly vandalism or petty theft. Also mischaracterizing people who don't agree with your political viewpoint and referring to them as "spas" does not reflect well on you.

amacachi

Isn't Willie going to be bringing a few busloads down to see her? Should be fun. Sigh.

ApeXaviour

REPSOC1916 wrote: »

Think it might be important to be in full possession of the facts, especially given the fact that you're a moderator.

Not a moderator of this forum though. No power to abuse, so no responsibility to remain somewhat impartial in the more controversial topics, anymore than any other regular poster.

Also, as you suggest the rioting was mostly conducted by vandals and petty thieves... it couldn't be much of a stretch to call them "spas". They likely hate britain and the queen too.

andrew

REPSOC1916 wrote: »

Firstly that march had nothing to do with the Orange Order - it was a Love Ulster parade organized by a man known as Willie Frazer who is head of a campaigns group called FAIR. Both are rather interesting groups. For a start FAIR recently had it's funding withdrawn from the E.U. due to what it described as "major failures in the organisation's ability to adhere to the conditions associated with its funding allocation". FAIR have also been criticized for solely representing the victims of Republican violence - it has never campaigned for victims of either loyalist paramilitaries or british state security. Frazer is another interesting fellow. In addition to having links with the Ku Klux Klan, he has ran on a number of occassions for a number of fringe loyalist groups and was refused a gun license because he was known to associate with loyalist paramilitaries.

My point was that, regardless of what the march was (I didn't know it wasn't an orange march/orange order affiliated) there are still enough people around who dislike Britain that there's a threat to the queen. The response to the love Ulster parade is an example of the kind of hate that some people have toward Britain. For sure, not every anti-British person is like that, but at least some are, hence the threat. I'm not going to debate about whether the Love Ulster march was a good/bad thing, suffice to say I don't think there should have been a counter demo such that it was unable to take place.

Think it might be important to be in full possession of the facts, especially given the fact that you're a moderator.

I mod the economics forum. Elsewhere I'm a regular user.

Secondly the vast majority of people who rioted were not there for political reasons. It was mainly vandalism or petty theft. Also mischaracterizing people who don't agree with your political viewpoint and referring to them as "spas" does not reflect well on you.

I think hardcore nationalists in general, hardcore Republicans included, are spas. If that doesn't reflect well on me amongst said hardcore nationalists, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Unregistered.

In fairness, you did say people who hate Britain are spas. I hate mushrooms. Am I a spa?

andrew

Unregistered. wrote: »

In fairness, you did say people who hate Britain are spas. I hate mushrooms. Am I a spa?

No, they're not spas because they hate something, they're spas because they hate Britain specifically.

Unregistered.

andrew wrote: »

No, they're not spas because they hate something, they're spas because they hate Britain specifically.

What makes Britain the exception? Why am I not a spa?

andrew

Unregistered. wrote: »

What makes Britain the exception? Why am I not a spa?

Don't get me wrong, I think hate is a valid emotion. Because Mushrooms don't taste very nice, I think it's legit to hate them. On the other hand, I don't think there's a legit reason to hate an entire nation such as Britain. I'd love to hear one.

Unregistered.

andrew wrote: »

Because Mushrooms don't taste very nice, and so I think it's legit to not like them. On the other hand, I don't think there's a legit reason to hate an entire nation such as Britain.

Some people do have reasons I guess? Even still, irrational hate of anything isn't uncommon. I don't think specifically targeting people who hate Britain and calling them spas is very nice .

andrew

Unregistered. wrote: »

Some people do have reasons I guess? Even still, irrational hate of anything isn't uncommon. I don't think specifically targeting people who hate Britain and calling them spas is very nice .

I don't think anyone has a legit reason to hate Britain. And irrational hate may not be uncommon, but that doesn't justify it. I agree calling people spas isn't nice; that's why I reserve it for people who I actually think are spas.

REPSOC1916

andrew wrote: »

I think hardcore nationalists in general, hardcore Republicans included, are spas. If that doesn't reflect well on me amongst said hardcore nationalists, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

I really doubt you know any republicans.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Not a moderator of this forum though. No power to abuse, so no responsibility to remain somewhat impartial in the more controversial topics, anymore than any other regular poster.

My apologies for that mistake.

The Black Oil

Excuse my ignorance, which one is the Lincoln Gate entrance?

Not sure about going in this week. Graduate reader's card and ID from where I'm studying now (out foreign) probably won't suffice.

Mark200

The Black Oil wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, which one is the Lincoln Gate entrance?

Not sure about going in this week. Graduate reader's card and ID from where I'm studying now (out foreign) probably won't suffice.

The little road between Nassau Street and Westland Row
http://www.tcd.ie/Maps/map.php

Larianne

Is the Sports Centre open tomorrow? It looks like it is to Staff and Students only from the website, but I'm not sure??

cm2000

Is the library open tomorrow?

Mark200

cm2000 wrote: »

Is the library open tomorrow?

Yes

zam

I HATE YOU LIZ, such an ordeal to leave college today. This may seem like a petty thing to be peeved about but still, having to spend at least half an hour on a round trip from the BLU to get a coffee is not amusing.

andrew

I assure, The Worlds smallest violin is playing the worlds saddest song, just for you

lucernarian

andrew wrote: »

I assure, The Worlds smallest violin is playing the worlds saddest song, just for you

:rolleyes:

zam

andrew wrote: »

I assure, The Worlds smallest violin is playing the worlds saddest song, just for you

*World's.

...YEAH.

andrew

zam wrote: »

*World's.

...YEAH.

Oh christ how embarassing

Lisandro

...and thus began, the grammar war.

The queen's visit hasn't inconvenienced me personally. However, I am saddened to see how pedestalised the British royal family is and how it is continued in Britain to invest money and importance into a family born with silver spoons in their mouths and who are tokens of an obsolete form of government and a time of British history when social inequalities and social divides were much more prominent and exaggerated.

Granted, not all British people still support the monarchy, but in a country that everyone agrees has moved on to democracy (albeit a constitutional monarchy), it is disappointing that a monarch continues to hold a position of respect and reverence of the general British public without having done the great acts expected to deserve it. Most countries have been ruled by a monarch at some point, but now, only a minority remain; why can't Britain join those who no longer invest power in someone for being born in the right place at the right time? Maybe they have strong reasons, but I'm not aware of them.

All the extensive preparations for the visit are one thing when it's for a prime minister or president of a foreign country. It is quite another when it's for someone whose only claim to fame is to be the daughter of someone who used to be very, very powerful. I won't turn this into a full-on argumentative piece, but to finish, I'll say that I've asked myself before, "What is the point?" I personally don't agree with the example the British monarchy sets for its society and question whether this visit will really accomplish anything beyond an increase in tourism revenue.

Maybe_Memories

Lisandro wrote: »

...and thus began, the grammar war.

The queen's visit hasn't inconvenienced me personally. However, I am saddened to see how pedestalised the British royal family is and how it is continued in Britain to invest money and importance into a family born with silver spoons in their mouths and who are tokens of an obsolete form of government and a time of British history when social inequalities and social divides were much more prominent and exaggerated.

Granted, not all British people still support the monarchy, but in a country that everyone agrees has moved on to democracy (albeit a constitutional monarchy), it is disappointing that a monarch continues to hold a position of respect and reverence of the general British public without having done the great acts expected to deserve it. Most countries have been ruled by a monarch at some point, but now, only a minority remain; why can't Britain join those who no longer invest power in someone for being born in the right place at the right time? Maybe they have strong reasons, but I'm not aware of them.

All the extensive preparations for the visit are one thing when it's for a prime minister or president of a foreign country. It is quite another when it's for someone whose only claim to fame is to be the daughter of someone who used to be very, very powerful. I won't turn this into a full-on argumentative piece, but to finish, I'll say that I've asked myself before, "What is the point?" I personally don't agree with the example the British monarchy sets for its society and question whether this visit will really accomplish anything beyond an increase in tourism revenue.

Completely agree

ApeXaviour

Lisandro wrote: »

However, I am saddened to see how pedestalised the British royal family is and how it is continued in Britain to invest money and importance into a family born with silver spoons in their mouths and who are tokens of an obsolete form of government and a time of British history when social inequalities and social divides were much more prominent and exaggerated.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

Lisandro wrote: »

Granted, not all British people still support the monarchy, but in a country that everyone agrees has moved on to democracy (albeit a constitutional monarchy), it is disappointing that a monarch continues to hold a position of respect and reverence of the general British public without having done the great acts expected to deserve it.

Most celebrities fit this profile. The reason for their esteem may be offensive to you, but I assure you it is no more than Westlife's is to me.

Most countries have been ruled by a monarch at some point, but now, only a minority remain; why can't Britain join those who no longer invest power in someone for being born in the right place at the right time? Maybe they have strong reasons, but I'm not aware of them.

"Ruled" by a monarch is rather inaccurate considering her utter lack of power. Why they keep them around? For the same reason our barristers still wear wigs, or trinity still has scholars... it's a connection to the past and an identity. You yourself no doubt admit that deadly sin: pride, in your nation. She's merely a symbol of that.

All the extensive preparations for the visit are one thing when it's for a prime minister or president of a foreign country.

Said preparations were primarily security related, and unfortunately warranted. If our president were under threat on a foreign visit I would expect nothing less.

Lisandro wrote: »

It is quite another when it's for someone whose only claim to fame is to be the daughter of someone who used to be very, very powerful. I won't turn this into a full-on argumentative piece, but to finish, I'll say that I've asked myself before, "What is the point?" I personally don't agree with the example the British monarchy sets for its society and question whether this visit will really accomplish anything beyond an increase in tourism revenue.

Look, we're not subservient to them any more. However they choose their titular head of state doesn't concern us in the slightest... jebus like our current president ran uncontested in the last election! This lady is at least groomed for the role of shaking hands.

Now I consider myself a republican (though I suppose some wouldn't) and I'm very proud today that we can finally have a visit from a foreign, (titled) head of state from our former occupying power. Significantly: the first where we are not subservient! I am especially proud (and I have no idea why other self-proclaimed republicans are not) of the fact that she lay a wreath commemorating the Irish dead from our independence struggle... which is especially significant considering how bloody few those were by comparison to the (even just irish) dead during WWI. How can anyone even possibly consider protesting this is beyond me.

Lisandro

ApeXaviour,

I think you've mischaracterised my post and treated it as an attack on the queen's visit. I don't for a second deny that this visit has advantages. I don't deny either that the queen has tried to bridge some gaps between Ireland and England's histories. On the balance of everything involved, I don't even oppose the queen's visit to Ireland, as you seem to think I had. However, I haven't lost sight of the less appealing aspects of a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise. But please, I'm not attacking anyone, don't react so strongly to my opinion, that's something which came across to me in the last section of your response. I find that rude. Anyway, let's not fall out over it, let's get down to business.

First, regarding money, I don't dispute that the queen's lands are profitable. That essentially boils down to the British monarch being a landowner who "leases" the land to the state who pays £40M "rent" and yields huge profits. Were I a British citizen, I would prefer if that land belonged to the state and the £200M income would not have a £40M bite taken out of it. But hey, that's having my cake and eating it. I think the video presented the queen's contribution to tourism very misleadingly, I'd contest just how much tourist revenue England would lose without a monarch. But money is a minor point, so I won't get bogged down by that.

Now, I don't find the queen's esteem "offensive", and I never said that I do. I don't approve of it, but that does not equate with offence and I don't begrudge other people their right to revere her. For the record, I don't approve of the hype and attention given to most famous people, but once again, I don't begrudge people for doing so.

I never said the queen rules England. She undoubtedly has power (albeit not in the same way the British monarch used to) and influence, but that doesn't equate to ruling. It's her power and influence with which I don't agree, because it's been blindly invested in her, not something she's built up from her involvement in the real world. Connections to the past are all well and good, but that's not to say there can't be reasons that trump the nostalgic ones. I personally don't think the English monarchy of yore was one of which to be proud, once again, were I an Englishman, it's not something I would like to be part of the identity of modern England.

By the way, this debate is not about how much we do in way of preparations for the queen, those two lines were there to question why Britain should continue to have a monarchy where one individual is considered significantly more important than others by way of her birth. I know we're not ruled by England anymore, that doesn't mean we can't hold an opinion on the matter and discuss it calmly. They're welcome to handle their internal affairs however they like, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do an analysis if we feel like it.

It's easy to get distracted by a monetary argument about practical benefits, but my argument is more a point of principle. Is it really the best thing to do to support an outdated and obsolete institution? When British children see a family revered simply for being royal, does it really give a good message of how to value people and form respect for them based on their personal merits rather than their social status? Should an entire family be afforded special treatment from the public for being descended from kings and queens? The support the royal family receives and the very title "your majesty" affirms the hierarchical nature of English society (yes, it is more even than it used to be, but still indulges aspects of former eras) and implies an acceptance within the public that some people are, well, just more important than them. I don't propose that we go over and kick the royal family out of Buckingham Palace, it's a British matter that concerns them and not us, but we are perfectly entitled to discuss our opinions on it.

Larianne

Anyone here meet the Queen yesterday??

ApeXaviour

Larianne wrote: »

Anyone here meet the Queen yesterday??

Sorta

Larianne

Guard of honour kinda thing?

lucernarian

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Look, we're not subservient to them any more. However they choose their titular head of state doesn't concern us in the slightest... jebus like our current president ran uncontested in the last election! This lady is at least groomed for the role of shaking hands.

Now I consider myself a republican (though I suppose some wouldn't) and I'm very proud today that we can finally have a visit from a foreign, (titled) head of state from our former occupying power. Significantly: the first where we are not subservient! I am especially proud (and I have no idea why other self-proclaimed republicans are not) of the fact that she lay a wreath commemorating the Irish dead from our independence struggle... which is especially significant considering how bloody few those were by comparison to the (even just irish) dead during WWI. How can anyone even possibly consider protesting this is beyond me.

I'm not sure what comparison there is to make between an uncontested Irish presidential election and the status and choosing of the UK's head of state. The two situations are completely different on many levels. I'd agree in any case that the UK monarch's existence is no cause of concern when executive power is rested in democratic institutions.

Bearing in mind however that this visit is a expense to the State with unquantifiable gains, it's not a far stretch of the imagination to see why one might want to protest this and indeed US president Barack Obama's visit. I firmly disagree with the modus operandi and the politics of Richard Boyd-Barrett but I must respect that his opinion is *a* reasonable perspective among other equally reasonable views. That is, we don't need to spend 30 million euros to tell us what we already know which is we are friends of the people of Britain.

Pet

Wow, u r rly clever, Lisandro.

(That's not sarcasm; I'm in emphatic agreement with what you've written so far. Well-said and bravo to you, sir.)