A bit sad

[1971]

Originally Posted by prprandall51

Unless you know him personally and are equipped to contradict the impression he gives of being a thoughtful and intelligent man who is weighed down by a frustration that you are likely never to have a measure of, I doubt you will be able to substantiate your opinion that he would be unable to find employment if he had led a different life.

Are you sure you are not letting your opinion of the role he plays within the monarchy cloud your opinion of the man himself?

I know him no more than you. Your interpretation of him as a man weighed down etc. is just that, your interpretation as my interpretation was mine. As you said of my view, unless you know him personally and are equipped.... and so on. My thoughts on him are taken from what I do know, not what I might imagine or perceive, but fact. For starters, I believe him to be an adulteress hypocrite, conducting himself in a manner far removed from the protocol expected of a future king and defender of the faith. A manipulator of his position for self gain, who entered into marriage on a whim of convenience. One could go on.....and on.

[1971]

Originally Posted by MOCAŠ

Would those be 'tin pot' business interests, or serious ones?

Do I really need to point out that over 70% of adults between the ages of 16-64 (that's almost 30m) are in gainful employment, and seem to get along just fine. Some people seem all too ready to focus solely on the negatives, believing that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

This should cheer you up, though: you're most unlikely to see a King Charles within your lifetime (unless it's being taken for a walk...).

Although your remark regarding business interests is petty, I do hope the comment re Charles is accurate. Why do you think so?
As for 70% in employment, I'm not too sure, it depends on how you define gainful employment. If it means 30m people work a "proper weeks work" that's one thing, but if it means a high number of those work 16 hours (which I believe the government views as being fully employed), then that's another thing altogether.

[MOCAŠ]

Originally Posted by 1971

For starters, I believe him to be an adulteress hypocrite, conducting himself in a manner far removed from the protocol expected of a future king and defender of the faith.

Perhaps you need to bone up on your history? You'll find that past monarchs have fallen prey to far greater excesses that the Duke of Cornwall has ever managed. Yes, he has fallen prey to human frailty, but then, he is human...

It is his misfortune to have lived in an age when intense (not to say intrusive) press scrutiny has laid his private live bare for all to see. There was a time when such matters would never have reached the attention of the general public.

[LTD]

So we lose the Monarchy and become a Republic.

Who in God's name is fit and proper enough to run it ?

[LTD]

Originally Posted by 1971

Evening All!

My first post here, and sadly not to do with MBs, but had to put my point of view over; namely that we are a tin pot little country, peopled largely by hordes of the uneducated & work shy. We display to the rest of the world a feeble refusal to accept our current position, attempting instead to hang on to our faded but grander past. That we retain a monarchy we cannot afford, together with it's associated & ridiculous ceremony, merely confirms our national pomposity.

I think they have spelled the name of your county wrong.

[MOCAŠ]

Originally Posted by LTD

So we lose the Monarchy and become a Republic.

Who in God's name is fit and proper enough to run it ?

[1971]

Originally Posted by MOCAŠ

Perhaps you need to bone up on your history? You'll find that past monarchs have fallen prey to far greater excesses that the Duke of Cornwall has ever managed. Yes, he has fallen prey to human frailty, but then, he is human...

It is his misfortune to have lived in an age when intense (not to say intrusive) press scrutiny has laid his private live bare for all to see. There was a time when such matters would never have reached the attention of the general public.

It is not necessary for me to "bone up on history" as my post did not refer to the past, but present difficulties. Of course, you are quite correct to highlight that the monarchy has always abused its position. Charles is the just the most prominent royal to commit such things in fairly recent times.
I do think that your second comment regarding the public gaze really has been the RF's downfall, it was probably the film made in the late 60s or early 70s that started the feeding frenzy. Probably, in retrospect the Queen's biggest error of judgement from her point of view.

[1971]

Originally Posted by LTD

I think they have spelled the name of your county wrong.

And I think your intelligence level remains as it was at your birth. Try to evolve your mind beyond vulgarity and if you must make clumsy attempts at wit, humourous or funny always helps.

[MOCAŠ]

Originally Posted by 1971

Although your remark regarding business interests is petty,

It wasn't intended to be. You regard our country to be 'tin pot', yet say your business ties to it are sufficient to keep you here. Surely any country capable of sustaining such a business must have something going for it? I think it was your description of the UK that was rather petty.

Originally Posted by 1971

I do hope the comment re Charles is accurate. Why do you think so?

It was accurate enough. The Prince of Wales is most likely to be styled King George VII when he accedes the Throne.

Originally Posted by 1971

As for 70% in employment, I'm not too sure, it depends on how you define gainful employment. If it means 30m people work a "proper weeks work" that's one thing, but if it means a high number of those work 16 hours (which I believe the government views as being fully employed), then that's another thing altogether.

How many hours does a man have to work for to make his contribution to society worthwhile. I have friends that work anything from 10 to 60 hours each week; each is very well able to support his family without any public assistance.

[1971]

[QUOTE=MOCAŠ;1398061]It wasn't intended to be. You regard our country to be 'tin pot', yet say your business ties to it are sufficient to keep you here. Surely any country capable of sustaining such a business must have something going for it? I think it was your description of the UK that was rather petty.
The 'tin pot' reference relates to how we ourselves perceive our standing to be, compared to reality. We simply are no longer a big hitter in the world's top league. True to say we were, but no longer. We shroud ourselves from reality and the size and grandeur of the monarchy really does not fit.
it was accurate enough. The Prince of Wales is most likely to be styled King George VII when he accedes the Throne.
Accepted; haven't heard about this.
How many hours does a man have to work for to make his contribution to society worthwhile. I have friends that work anything from 10 to 60 hours each week; each is very well able to support his family without any public assistance.[/QUOT
I know people like those too. The ones I'm referring to are those who are counted as employed, perhaps working admirably for a limited number of hours, on poor rates, whilst not being able to support themselves. Possibly to massage the figures?

[MOCAŠ]

Originally Posted by 1971

I know people like those too. The ones I'm referring to are those who are counted as employed, perhaps working admirably for a limited number of hours, on poor rates, whilst not being able to support themselves. Possibly to massage the figures?

The stats are here for your perusal: Labour Market Statistics, January 2012

[1971]

Originally Posted by MOCAŠ

The stats are here for your perusal: Labour Market Statistics, January 2012

Very interesting, one of the pdfs contained this;

Actual hours worked measures the number of hours worked in the economy. Total hours worked per week were 916.3 million in the three months to November 2011, down 0.2 million from the three months to August 2011. Average weekly hours worked in the three months to November 2011 were 31.5, unchanged from the three months to August 2011.

It seems to suggest there may be a number working fewer hours. Another interesting bit of info was on average salary;

Earnings measures the money received in return for work done, gross of tax. The estimates relate to Great Britain and include salaries but not unearned income, benefits in kind or arrears of pay. Average total pay (including bonuses) was £464 per week in November 2011. In the three months to November 2011 total pay rose by 1.9 per cent on a year earlier, down 0.2 from the three months to October. Average regular pay (excluding bonuses) was £438 per week in November 2011. In the three months to November 2011 regular pay rose by 1.9 per cent on a year earlier, up 0.1 from the three months to October.

This suggests an awful lot of people on huge earnings to compensate for those millions on minimum wage. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm too far wrong, but I seem to remember a couple of years ago reading that "most i.e. the biggest group as opposed to the average earned about 12 or 13k

[MOCAŠ]

Originally Posted by 1971

This suggests an awful lot of people on huge earnings to compensate for those millions on minimum wage.

Clearly that is statistically (and realistically) improbable. Those earning over as little as £100,000 per year will account for less than 1% of the working population, so the conclusion must be that the vast majority are distributed either side of the national average.

Originally Posted by 1971

I'm sure you will correct me if I'm too far wrong, but I seem to remember a couple of years ago reading that "most i.e. the biggest group as opposed to the average earned about 12 or 13k

Ah, so we're talking mode rather than mean (back to O level Statistics). I can't say I've ever heard that figure quoted, but I'd be amazed to learn that most people were earning so little so recently - that would suggest that most people were on the national minimum wage.

[finisterre]

Originally Posted by 1971

Evening All!

My first post here, and sadly not to do with MBs, but had to put my point of view over; namely that we are a tin pot little country, peopled largely by hordes of the uneducated & work shy. We display to the rest of the world a feeble refusal to accept our current position, attempting instead to hang on to our faded but grander past. That we retain a monarchy we cannot afford, together with it's associated & ridiculous ceremony, merely confirms our national pomposity.

I know, it is part of the fun.
But I would still keep them.
I find the daftness of it all quite charming.


ps good start, I want more.

[1971]

[QUOTE=MOCAŠ;1398085]Clearly that is statistically (and realistically) improbable. Those earning over as little as £100,000 per year will account for less than 1% of the working population, so the conclusion must be that the vast majority are distributed either side of the national average.


Seems not quite so improbable, although surprising all the same. This from 2009, from the BBC. Hope the link works.

[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8072031.stm"]