Something going on in Parliament - RIP QE2

[vetran]

Which part of reform are you not understanding.

Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?

only after we adopt sharia law, we can apply it to those living in sin!

OK it might be stoning but vive la difference!

[malvolio]

Which part of reform are you not understanding.

Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?

Clearly I am understanding a lot more than you do.

There hasn't been relevant reform between 1640 and now. Some rules have been updated, mainly to do with individuals, but those defining the State and its government haven't.

Perhaps learn to distinguish between State, Monarch and Incumbent and you might make more sense.

[ladymuck]

Clearly I am understanding a lot more than you do.

There hasn't been relevant reform between 1640 and now. Some rules have been updated, mainly to do with individuals, but those defining the State and its government haven't.

Perhaps learn to distinguish between State, Monarch and Incumbent and you might make more sense.

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?

[malvolio]

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?

No, of course I don't. That's clearly wrong


It's not that they shouldnt apply, but you have to distinguish between rules applying to people and those applying to the State and its employees. Changing the latter has its own problems due to the way the State is constructed, and the constraints on those rules that feed back to why Charles 1 lost his head and Charles 2 got his crown.

[SueEllen]

No, of course I don't. That's clearly wrong


It's not that they shouldnt apply, but you have to distinguish between rules applying to people and those applying to the State and its employees. Changing the latter has its own problems due to the way the State is constructed, and the constraints on those rules that feed back to why Charles 1 lost his head and Charles 2 got his crown.

So you think it is wrong for say the H&S at Work Act to apply to the monarch's and Prince of Wales households but fine for it to apply to government departments and other people's private households?

Do you think it would be a good look for the British monarchy for someone to die on a royal estate owned by one of them with say Prince Andrew in residence due to a lapse in H&S? It would make the British state look as corrupt as Middle Eastern countries where servants are killed for displeasing a Prince.

[vetran]

So you think it is wrong for say the H&S at Work Act to apply to the monarch's and Prince of Wales households but fine for it to apply to government departments and other people's private households?

Do you think it would be a good look for the British monarchy for someone to die on a royal estate owned by one of them with say Prince Andrew in residence due to a lapse in H&S? It would make the British state look as corrupt as Middle Eastern countries where servants are killed for displeasing a Prince.

So someone dying due to poor management and precautions is exactly the same as the prince sending someone out to the courtyard to have his head chopped off because his majesties egg wasn't runny enough. Seems reasonable.

[d000hg]

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think that because it hasn't, it should? Anything old is automatically wrong?

[ladymuck]

You think that because it hasn't, it should? Anything old is automatically wrong?

Fair point. I'm not for change for sake of change, just change where old ways just don't work in modern times.

[d000hg]

Fair point. I'm not for change for sake of change, just change where old ways just don't work in modern times.

As a society we do seem very of the view "anything that isn't perfect should be torn down" of late. Maybe that's always how it's been and only now am I aware of it, but my default position tends to be not "if it's been this way for centuries it's OK" but "if it's been this way for centuries, nothing has changed in the last decade to suddenly invalidate it". When I say "default position" I am open to being convinced otherwise but if we start changing entrenched systems because they are not fully aligned with modern views, we'll never stop tearing them down and rewriting them such is the pace of change right now.

A point made - by Russell Brand of all people - that I found thought-provoking is that the death of the queen who has been such a symbol of constancy and lived through (or outlived) so many changes, will inevitably be a bit of a dam-breaking in terms of societal change and challenging established ways of thought.

[northernladuk]

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?

There has been a lot of reform in recent years and I'm absolutely certain that will continue at pace, particularly under Willam. Very difficult to provide top down reform when the top hasn't changed. She did great but such a long service doesn't always give the opportunity for new ways of thinking. We've got that now and I'm sure there will be lots of good stuff happening.