King Charles praises ‘selfless’ people who form ‘backbone of society’ in Christmas speech

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Not true, pink cards are for migrant workers.

 

I think you mean the white card or "Certificate of Identity" or "White Card" which is given to some refugees. The white card is not a formal recognition of refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention, but it does provide some degree of protection and allows individuals to remain in the country temporarily.

Whatever. Those I've met with Pink ID cards, used to teach some in BanPhong, Ratchaburi, told me they can stay and work permenantly. Most of them were stateless refugees from Burma.

 

Anyway, asylum of sorts. Not sent back.

[Neeranam]

4 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

A little bit of reading might enlighten you:

 

https://www.unhcr.org/th/en/unhcr-in-thailand

Thanks, I know a little about this. 

My point was I think UK should be more like Thailand. We don't put illegal immigrants up in hotels like the UK does.

[youreavinalaff]

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Thanks, I know a little about this. 

My point was I think UK should be more like Thailand. We don't put illegal immigrants up in hotels like the UK does.

The UK does not.

 

Asylum seekers get accommodation outside of detention centres. Not illegals.

[Neeranam]

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The UK does not.

 

Asylum seekers get accommodation outside of detention centres. Not illegals.

OK, I think putting asylum seekings in hotels is crazy.

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

OK, I think putting asylum seekings in hotels is crazy.

 

   Did nt you previously personally invite all Palestinian refuges to go and live in Scotland ?

Where would they all live ?

[brewsterbudgen]

8 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

OK, I think putting asylum seekings in hotels is crazy.

Where should they be put then?   With the recent Ukraine example, many individuals accommodated them privately, but those were exceptional circumstances.  

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

OK, I think putting asylum seekings in hotels is crazy.

Hotels but only in name.

 

It's a form of accommodation. That is all.

 

It's not as if they are laying on their bed, flicking TV channels and calling room service.

 

There are other forms of accommodation ready but protesters, human rights activists and court proceedings hold things up.

[Neeranam]

14 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Where should they be put then?   With the recent Ukraine example, many individuals accommodated them privately, but those were exceptional circumstances.  

I don't know. Maybe tents - make the UK unpleasant for illegal immigrants.

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, Neeranam said:

I don't know. Maybe tents - make the UK unpleasant for illegal immigrants.

The government have been trying that. Detention centres, army barracks, barges off the Portland coast, Rwanda.

 

All blocked or slowed by activists, courts, protesters and lefty opposition.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

He does pay tax. Tax payers do not pay him.

 

The Crown Estate gives more than it takes.

 

That's what it has to do with taxes.

 

Your political leanings are blinding you from the truth.

 

He has tac exemptions that are not available to anyone else. Why is that? He is not special? He has no remarkable qualities that makes the lives of the rest of us better. He is simply a man who has done nothing in his entire life to better the people of the UK, but sat with his hand out each and every day and had us hand over more and more to him. 

[youreavinalaff]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

He has tac exemptions that are not available to anyone else. Why is that? He is not special? He has no remarkable qualities that makes the lives of the rest of us better. He is simply a man who has done nothing in his entire life to better the people of the UK, but sat with his hand out each and every day and had us hand over more and more to him. 

You hand over to him? What do you had to him?

 

As for doing nothing his entire life..? Your republican seletive blindness is getting worse.

[Neeranam]

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The government have been trying that. Detention centres, army barracks, barges off the Portland coast, Rwanda.

 

All blocked or slowed by activists, courts, protesters and lefty opposition.

I see, thanks

[RuamRudy]

13 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The government have been trying that. Detention centres, army barracks, barges off the Portland coast, Rwanda.

 

All blocked or slowed by activists, courts, protesters and lefty opposition.

 

All blocked because what the government was proposing is illegal.

[RuamRudy]

13 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

You hand over to him? What do you had to him?

 

Of course, I have never personally handed over anything to him or his mother for 2 important reasons - firstly, I object to their presence so would resist any requirement to do so personally, but also they like to remain aloof from the hoi poloi and rather that their flunkies go out to fleece the population directly from the treasury. 

 

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £345m

 

13 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

As for doing nothing his entire life..? Your republican seletive blindness is getting worse.

 

In what ways has he improved the lives of the people of the UK? What specifically has he done for the betterment of the population. 

 

Like his mother, he has interfered in the formulation of laws proposed or being drafted by Westminster and Holyrood, and presumably the Senedd and Stormont, literally hundreds of times - but not once did either of them do so for the sake of the population. Each and every time was to carve out concessions for themselves and their family to ensure that they remain insulated and protected from having to comply with the laws that our democratically elected government decree. 

 

Revealed: Queen’s sweeping immunity from more than 160 laws

Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate

Revealed: Queen vetted 67 laws before Scottish parliament could pass them

Queen secretly lobbied Scottish government ministers for climate law exemption

The Queen Used Her Lobbying Powers To Avoid Scotland’s New Green Energy Law

 

The reality is that they do nothing to help the people of the UK; their focus is on further enriching themselves and shoring up their family position so that future generations of parasitic Windsors can continue to exploit the UK taxpayers.

[brewsterbudgen]

18 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I don't know. Maybe tents - make the UK unpleasant for illegal immigrants.

I was writing about legal asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants.

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

All blocked because what the government was proposing is illegal.

Incorrect.

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Of course, I have never personally handed over anything to him or his mother for 2 important reasons - firstly, I object to their presence so would resist any requirement to do so personally, but also they like to remain aloof from the hoi poloi and rather that their flunkies go out to fleece the population directly from the treasury. 

 

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £345m

 

 

In what ways has he improved the lives of the people of the UK? What specifically has he done for the betterment of the population. 

 

Like his mother, he has interfered in the formulation of laws proposed or being drafted by Westminster and Holyrood, and presumably the Senedd and Stormont, literally hundreds of times - but not once did either of them do so for the sake of the population. Each and every time was to carve out concessions for themselves and their family to ensure that they remain insulated and protected from having to comply with the laws that our democratically elected government decree. 

 

Revealed: Queen’s sweeping immunity from more than 160 laws

Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate

Revealed: Queen vetted 67 laws before Scottish parliament could pass them

Queen secretly lobbied Scottish government ministers for climate law exemption

The Queen Used Her Lobbying Powers To Avoid Scotland’s New Green Energy Law

 

The reality is that they do nothing to help the people of the UK; their focus is on further enriching themselves and shoring up their family position so that future generations of parasitic Windsors can continue to exploit the UK taxpayers.

Suffering from selective reading and, thus, selective quoting and creative answering.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Incorrect.

 

If only the supreme court judges were as knowledgeable of the law as you seem to be...

 

https://time.com/6335423/uk-migrants-rwanda-plan-unlawful/

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Suffering from selective reading and, thus, selective quoting and creative answering.

 

 

 

No, I asked what Charles has done to improve the lives of the people of the UK. You seem unable to identify anything either.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If only the supreme court judges were as knowledgeable of the law as you seem to be...

 

https://time.com/6335423/uk-migrants-rwanda-plan-unlawful/

Even more selective reading. 

 

I mentioned a handful of policies. You said " all" illegal then only chose one to link to.

[VocalNeal]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £345m

I

 

How much would it cost if , say, Tony Blair was president?  How many tourist pounds would he bring in?

How would he personally help the poor?

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

No, I asked what Charles has done to improve the lives of the people of the UK. You seem unable to identify anything either.

It would take too long to list all of the charities donations go to.

 

You could start with The Prince's Trust.

[RuamRudy]

Just now, VocalNeal said:

 

How much would it cost in , say, Tony Blair was president?  How many tourist pounds would he bring in?

How would he personally help the poor?

 

Several things to unpack there. 

 

Firstly, if Blair was, God forbid, president, it would be because he won a mandate from the electorate, and would be accountable to them. He could be replaced if the electorate so desired.

 

Tourists don't come to see Charles. They don't get to spend time with him and his family. They come to see the history of the British isles. Much in the same way that they go to France to see their palaces and historical sights.

 

As to his actual role, well that would need to be defined and codified but the question remains, how does the British royal family make life better for UK citizens?

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

It would take too long to list all of the charities donations go to.

 

You could start with The Prince's Trust.

He gets other people to give their money to charities? We have Children in Need for that. Give me something more tangible than that.

[VocalNeal]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

it would be because he won a mandate from the electorate,

 

The same people who voted for Boaty McBoatface. 🤔

[youreavinalaff]

15 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

He gets other people to give their money to charities? We have Children in Need for that. Give me something more tangible than that.

Just because you dislike something, doesn't mean you should ignore the facts.

 

Twisting things people say does not make them wrong. Ignoring charitable contributions does not mean they don't happen.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Just because you dislike something, doesn't mean you should ignore the facts.

 

Twisting things people say does not make them wrong. Ignoring charitable contributions does not mean they don't happen.

 

So he is on a par with Esther Rantzen but much, much more costly. Thanks for clarifying. 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Just because you dislike something, doesn't mean you should ignore the facts.

 

Twisting things people say does not make them wrong. Ignoring charitable contributions does not mean they don't happen.

 

Countries without kings don't seem to have a problem running charities.

[RuamRudy]

21 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

 

The same people who voted for Boaty McBoatface. 🤔

 

Democracy doesn't always give pretty results, but having a choice is preferable to not. Are you suggesting we should do away with all forms of popular mandate?

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Countries without kings don't seem to have a problem running charities.

I didn't say they did but thanks for clarifying the British monarchy do run charities.