O/T Royal Wedding

For everything Leeds United related and everything not - Have your say... the Marching on Together way!
Forum rules
Please be sure you are acquainted with the forum rules outlined within our FAQs.
AndyG
Ballboy
Ballboy
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 2:05 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by AndyG » Sun May 20, 2018 9:02 am

Norm wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 12:27 am
Actually, it is someone else's fault. Parents are near banned from proper spanking and schools can't cane the kids at the same time. All sanctions have been removed by left wing 'children don't lie' idiots and kids nowadays are just as venal as ever. The problem is, they can't be punished now.

Now, did the parents do that? - no!
Did the schools do that? - no!
So who did that? - the left wing, in the name of "The children must express themselves" and "they shouldn't be abused" by corporal punishment. It wasn't ever abuse, it was simple discipline, and it's gone. We are witnessing the consequences.
Corporal punishment was banned in schools in 1986 under the very left wing government of Margaret Thatcher lol.

Actually, I'm all for blaming Thatcher for a lot of what's wrong with the country. You can trace quite a lot back directly to her, but stopping kids being beaten in schools was probably one of her better decisions.

Bally
Youth Team
Youth Team
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:43 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by Bally » Sun May 20, 2018 9:30 am

Not sure what the argument is here I'm not into the royals and this wedding but my gf and friends went the night before stood and waited for the procession had a picnic mets loads of lovely people from the UK and abroad and loved the whole day ,yet some of the ones moaning about it think nothing of being in the pub as soon as they are open on a Saturday sing songs go to a football match shout abuse at the opposition and officials then go back in the pub and drink some more before staggering home .
As for whoever listed the list of traditions we are losing that's just how it goes when we were young I'm sure our parents could do a list of things/traditions that had disappeared over the years,some changes are for the better some aren't that's just how it is

AndyG
Ballboy
Ballboy
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 2:05 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by AndyG » Sun May 20, 2018 9:38 am

John in Louisiana wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 4:16 am
Figure at least 5.000 foreign tourists in town to see the parade, spending an average of 2,000 quid each. Figure also that a lot of potential tourists are lured to the UK because of all the pomp and circumstance they saw on television today. It's the best possible advertisement for London tourism. There is also the economic multiplier effect at play (the effect caused by tourists coming to visit and going home while leaving their money behind).
Ok yes, short term bump in tourism, I get that. But Windsor castle, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and many other Royal residencies and there are loads more, are not open to the public. They are private estates.

Imagine if we had no Royal family but all those places were fully open to the public. The increase in tourism among British people alone wanting to visit would be immense.

AndyG
Ballboy
Ballboy
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 2:05 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by AndyG » Sun May 20, 2018 9:41 am

Bally wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 9:30 am
Not sure what the argument is here I'm not into the royals and this wedding but my gf and friends went the night before stood and waited for the procession had a picnic mets loads of lovely people from the UK and abroad and loved the whole day ,yet some of the ones moaning about it think nothing of being in the pub as soon as they are open on a Saturday sing songs go to a football match shout abuse at the opposition and officials then go back in the pub and drink some more before staggering home .
As for whoever listed the list of traditions we are losing that's just how it goes when we were young I'm sure our parents could do a list of things/traditions that had disappeared over the years,some changes are for the better some aren't that's just how it is
Spot on. When people get to a certain age, they always seem to think things were better in "their day", when really they mostly weren't.

Norm
Manager
Manager
Posts: 4303
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 2:51 am
Location: SW Missouri USA

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by Norm » Sun May 20, 2018 11:20 am

AndyG wrote:
Corporal punishment was banned in schools in 1986 under the very left wing government of Margaret Thatcher lol.

Actually, I'm all for blaming Thatcher for a lot of what's wrong with the country. You can trace quite a lot back directly to her, but stopping kids being beaten in schools was probably one of her better decisions.
The Civil Service was still left wing and I blame Margaret Thatcher for not sorting them out.
You're falling into the trap of calling it 'beating', when it was always only ever needed discipline. I was caned myself at school and I deserved it for behaving badly. It stopped me from progressing to being a real bad boy by making me think about consequences for my next bad behaviour. That's what's missing from our system. The kids who behaved well never needed that discipline and still don't, but the kids who behaved badly always needed correction and the only thing that kept them from being real monsters was the threat of a little pain and humiliation. Believe me some kids did need that or they would become uncontrollable.
It's a Euclidian straight line from that moment to what we have today, as pointed out by Muppet's wife.
All it takes is a gradual lessening of punishments over a significant period of time for behaviours to worsen exponentially. Like wild dogs they'll try more and more and, finding out there's nothing the teacher or Principal can really do, ramp it up a bit more.

However Andy, I realise that you are not going to be persuaded by my views (as soon as you said 'beating' I realised I was really wasting my breath) so, this will be my last post on the subject. I still respect your point of view and your right to have it. :tup:

User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 60937
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by 1964white » Sun May 20, 2018 12:14 pm

Norm wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 11:20 am
The Civil Service was still left wing and I blame Margaret Thatcher for not sorting them out.
You're falling into the trap of calling it 'beating', when it was always only ever needed discipline. I was caned myself at school and I deserved it for behaving badly. It stopped me from progressing to being a real bad boy by making me think about consequences for my next bad behaviour. That's what's missing from our system. The kids who behaved well never needed that discipline and still don't, but the kids who behaved badly always needed correction and the only thing that kept them from being real monsters was the threat of a little pain and humiliation. Believe me some kids did need that or they would become uncontrollable.
It's a Euclidian straight line from that moment to what we have today, as pointed out by Muppet's wife.
All it takes is a gradual lessening of punishments over a significant period of time for behaviours to worsen exponentially. Like wild dogs they'll try more and more and, finding out there's nothing the teacher or Principal can really do, ramp it up a bit more.

However Andy, I realise that you are not going to be persuaded by my views (as soon as you said 'beating' I realised I was really wasting my breath) so, this will be my last post on the subject. I still respect your point of view and your right to have it. :tup:
Now then Norm who would think kids don't need discipline :roll:

We are to old to think outside the box allowing children to run riot here, there & everywhere !

I got the cane once :chair: never again & guess what I behaved myself impeccably

AndyG
Ballboy
Ballboy
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 2:05 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by AndyG » Sun May 20, 2018 12:17 pm

Norm wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 11:20 am
The Civil Service was still left wing and I blame Margaret Thatcher for not sorting them out.
You're falling into the trap of calling it 'beating', when it was always only ever needed discipline. I was caned myself at school and I deserved it for behaving badly. It stopped me from progressing to being a real bad boy by making me think about consequences for my next bad behaviour. That's what's missing from our system. The kids who behaved well never needed that discipline and still don't, but the kids who behaved badly always needed correction and the only thing that kept them from being real monsters was the threat of a little pain and humiliation. Believe me some kids did need that or they would become uncontrollable.
It's a Euclidian straight line from that moment to what we have today, as pointed out by Muppet's wife.
All it takes is a gradual lessening of punishments over a significant period of time for behaviours to worsen exponentially. Like wild dogs they'll try more and more and, finding out there's nothing the teacher or Principal can really do, ramp it up a bit more.

However Andy, I realise that you are not going to be persuaded by my views (as soon as you said 'beating' I realised I was really wasting my breath) so, this will be my last post on the subject. I still respect your point of view and your right to have it. :tup:
Fair enough, it's a debate nobody wins because there's so much conflicting evidence on the subject.

But let's nail this myth that banning corporal punishment was some left wing conspiracy. Civil servants don't make laws, M.P's do and I seem to remember Thatcher had a massive majority at that time. So the ban on corporal punishment was actually brought in by the most heinous right wing government this country has ever seen.

Cjay
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by Cjay » Sun May 20, 2018 1:02 pm

Not read the whole thread.

But what sort of message is beating kids to keep them in line?

Discipline through violence . . . . .

To young to remember the cane but always thought it was a ridiculous concept.

User avatar
John in Louisiana
First Team
First Team
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by John in Louisiana » Sun May 20, 2018 1:23 pm

AndyG wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 9:38 am
Ok yes, short term bump in tourism, I get that. But Windsor castle, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and many other Royal residencies and there are loads more, are not open to the public. They are private estates.

Imagine if we had no Royal family but all those places were fully open to the public. The increase in tourism among British people alone wanting to visit would be immense.
My understanding (and I write this from 4.00 miles away) is that the money the British government spend on the royal family is derived from the profits of the Crown Estate.

The tourism value of the royal family is greater than what I stated earlier, apparently......

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-d ... mily-88335

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ey/278052/

Remove the royal family and (in the words of the marketing experts) diminish the brand.

AndyG
Ballboy
Ballboy
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 2:05 pm

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by AndyG » Sun May 20, 2018 1:40 pm

John in Louisiana wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 1:23 pm
My understanding (and I write this from 4.00 miles away) is that the money the British government spend on the royal family is derived from the profits of the Crown Estate.

The tourism value of the royal family is greater than what I stated earlier, apparently......

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-d ... mily-88335

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ey/278052/

Remove the royal family and (in the words of the marketing experts) diminish the brand.
Not if you open up all the residences to the public. If millions are prepared to come and gaze at these places from the outside, imagine how many more you'd get if you let them in.

User avatar
Gandalf
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 6881
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:51 am

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by Gandalf » Sun May 20, 2018 1:48 pm

AndyG wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 9:38 am
Ok yes, short term bump in tourism, I get that. But Windsor castle, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and many other Royal residencies and there are loads more, are not open to the public. They are private estates.

Imagine if we had no Royal family but all those places were fully open to the public. The increase in tourism among British people alone wanting to visit would be immense.
They are open to the public, and bring in a tremendous amount of tourist money. I know, as I have toured Buck House and Windsor Castle. They may not be open when royalty is in residence, and you can't see the beds they slept in the night before, but the treasures contained can be seen if you stump up the money for the ticket. The gardens and parkland at Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral are something special, as well.
Delapsus Resurgam - When I fall I shall rise!

liggy
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:54 am

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by liggy » Sun May 20, 2018 2:38 pm

Andy are you a Roundhead or a Cavalier :dun:

User avatar
hector
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3595
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:57 am
Location: Salisbury

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by hector » Sun May 20, 2018 2:59 pm

1964white wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 12:14 pm
Now then Norm who would think kids don't need discipline :roll:

We are to old to think outside the box allowing children to run riot here, there & everywhere !

I got the cane once :chair: never again & guess what I behaved myself impeccably
When I left school, I was the most punished pupil ever, and I think that still stands today...

I had the cane more times than I care to remember BUT... never for the same thing twice, I once got caned for getting to many lines from the prefects..!! and when in my first year, the prefects were allowed to slipper us, and I got that record too.... (it was bording school though, so I was there 24/7.......)

It did me no harm..... :) :) :)
:tup: Lay me place and bake me pie I'm starving for me gravy :) ... :wink:

User avatar
whiteswan
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:10 am

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by whiteswan » Sun May 20, 2018 2:59 pm

AndyG wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 1:40 pm
Not if you open up all the residences to the public. If millions are prepared to come and gaze at these places from the outside, imagine how many more you'd get if you let them in.
Hi Andy, I honestly think that the reason people come to 'gaze' at these places is because The Royal Family reside there....I doubt there would be as much interest from around the world if they were just 'buildings'.

User avatar
whiteswan
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:10 am

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by whiteswan » Sun May 20, 2018 3:06 pm

John in Louisiana wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 1:23 pm
My understanding (and I write this from 4.00 miles away) is that the money the British government spend on the royal family is derived from the profits of the Crown Estate.

The tourism value of the royal family is greater than what I stated earlier, apparently......

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-d ... mily-88335

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ey/278052/

Remove the royal family and (in the words of the marketing experts) diminish the brand.
Ditto :)

User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 60937
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by 1964white » Sun May 20, 2018 3:06 pm

hector wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:59 pm
When I left school, I was the most punished pupil ever, and I think that still stands today...

I had the cane more times than I care to remember BUT... never for the same thing twice, I once got caned for getting to many lines from the prefects..!! and when in my first year, the prefects were allowed to slipper us, and I got that record too.... (it was bording school though, so I was there 24/7.......)

It did me no harm..... :) :) :)
And you still misbehave ;-)

User avatar
hector
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3595
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:57 am
Location: Salisbury

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by hector » Sun May 20, 2018 3:09 pm

Only if I think I can get away with it......
:tup: Lay me place and bake me pie I'm starving for me gravy :) ... :wink:

fred
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:02 pm
Location: Herisau

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by fred » Sun May 20, 2018 3:12 pm

What I thought of: this would have been THE event for extremists to attack. Imagine the bridal pair being killed by some kind or terrorist attack.
My Point being: was anyone there, near the bridal pair in the carrage maybe? Question: how intense were the safety precautions?
Every single Person must have been surched for weapons etc.
Just curious how such extrem safety measures could effective be installed.

One of two footman (or both) in red tunics on the carriages are armed security I'm led to believe

User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 60937
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by 1964white » Sun May 20, 2018 3:25 pm

fred wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 3:12 pm
What I thought of: this would have been THE event for extremists to attack. Imagine the bridal pair being killed by some kind or terrorist attack.
My Point being: was anyone there, near the bridal pair in the carrage maybe? Question: how intense were the safety precautions?
Every single Person must have been surched for weapons etc.
Just curious how such extrem safety measures could effective be installed
One of the two footman (or both) in red tunics on the carriages are armed security I'm led to believe

liggy
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:54 am

Re: O/T Royal Wedding

Post by liggy » Sun May 20, 2018 3:29 pm

I got a reet caning off sandra"s Fatha for putting her in the club at 16.
He said I should of knowing better.
I was only 3 month older

Post Reply