Renton

No you're right, there would be a difference, just not much of one IMO. If you want to abolish the monarchy, I totally respect your view. My opinion is that what would replace it would be just as bad, possibly worse. 36595[/snapback] So you would prefer the president of the country to be chosen by right of birthright rather than elected? Don' t worry, this is what most people want - incredibly even the australians!

Tut. It's only because you know no better.

No, you just have old Tony+Cherie grinning at you everywhere you went! 36496[/snapback] but NOT their kids, aunties, nephews etc 36543[/snapback] What do you think would happen to their kids? They'd get cushy "jobs" and make a fortune. Their contacts would be such that they's always be ok. Look at the Churchills or the Kennedys or the Thatchers on the Annans. What's worse too is that it would all be away from the public gaze. 36547[/snapback] They wouldn't be certain to be the king one day, though would they? Honestly, I don't know why you are not acknowledging the difference.

But working class people are too busy worshipping Jade Goody and injecting heroine into their eyeballs to comment. 36523[/snapback] That's the charver underclass, surely. A brand new category of human detritus made by Thatcher.

If only it was more like Aldous Huxley's brave new world - a class for everyone and everyone happy in it. Alpha - Professionals - doctors etc. Beta - Lower professionals - nurses, accountants, IT etc Gamma - Skilled - plumbers, mechanics Delta - Unskilled - hair dressers, shop workers. Ahem. Epsilon - Charvers And before anyone complains, this is intended as a joke. Note though there is no space for the "ruling" classes.

Most working class people who make good eventually turn their backs on their roots. Estates are not normally the most wonderful places and most people can't wait to leave them. Any previous camaraderie will become resentment once you do well. The bonds of friendship in poverty are real, but vanish when there is financial imbalance. If you look at sports stars or lottery winners from poor backgrounds, they all get the fuck out of their previous environments, only to find that they don't necessarily fit in with their new "class" mates. Wouldn't you say? 36504[/snapback] I would. To the tune of the "Keep the red flag flying here": The working class can kiss my ass I've got the gaffer's job at last!

I'm middle class in almost every way, with strong socialist tendencies. I guess this is fairly obvious mind. Watch out for Northern Soul.....

Very true what you say. I just can't help thinking that abolishing the monarchy would be a symbollic step in the right direction for this country, that's all. Plus it would save me 37 pence a year AND I wouldn't have to put up with their ugly inbred mugs in the media!

What attitude? I'm answering your question. The difference is Harry gets money from the Civil List because of who he is, not because of what he does. Shearer's kids won't. 36427[/snapback] If anything the Royals are at more of a disadvantage than Shearer's kids yet they will both enjoy unearned privilage. What's the difference? Paris Hilton? George W? Lord Sainsbury? Prince Harry? 36443[/snapback] The royal family have power beyond their wealth, this is what I object to, and what makes them different to all those you listed. For instance, I don't know if you realise this, but the queen is actually head of state, she is the equivalent of our president, purely through a fluke of birth. Can you see the difference? I would abolish the monarchy immediately and let them stand on their own feet. With it, I would scrap the house of lords and all other institutions that balatently operate on hereditary privilege. This is supposed to be the 21st century ffs! 36455[/snapback] Ever heard of George W Bush? Bush/Queen, Bush/Queen etc etc. Also why do you pick and choose who you think should have inherited privilege? That's precisely why I asked about Shearer's kids. 36458[/snapback] Bush was elected was he not, even if this was a bit dodgy? The American system is far from ideal, but are you honestly telling me you can't see the difference?

I agree with passing on wealth but I think you'll probably find it hard to justify the state paying out because someone's ancestor locked his nephew in the Tower once! I thought this debate had stretched far beyond just the Royals though, it seemed to have become a bit of a class issue. That's what I thought NJS was commenting on. Anyway who really cares, if you look at the money they take out of the system in real terms, does it have an impact? Maybe Rob would be able to put it in terms of extra hospital beds or something. The Dutch have a royal family too, from what I can tell from my Dutch mates it's just not an issue in the same way as the UK, although it's really a bad time to try and make that argument... 36450[/snapback] I agree. I think the problem is more one of perceived injustice, when in reality, the Royal family do generate income. There are far more people we don't see that are born into privileged positions. It's about envy and perhaps a lack of belief that we will ever better our own circumstances. As unfashionable as it sounds, I believe attitude is the biggest hurdle to success. There are Asians in this country. There are Black people in this country. The Asians are doing better by and large. In general terms they have complained less and worked much harder. No that's not racist. That's unfortunately just how it is at the moment. 36453[/snapback] What a load of bollocks. It's not about envy, it's about inequality and injustice. And just to let you know, I would ban all private healthcare and education too. Well, ideally that's what I would like to do anyway. I have no objection to people having money and enjoying it, but I do object to them using it to perpetuate the class system through education or jump ahead in operation queues.

What attitude? I'm answering your question. The difference is Harry gets money from the Civil List because of who he is, not because of what he does. Shearer's kids won't. 36427[/snapback] If anything the Royals are at more of a disadvantage than Shearer's kids yet they will both enjoy unearned privilage. What's the difference? Paris Hilton? George W? Lord Sainsbury? Prince Harry? 36443[/snapback] The royal family have power beyond their wealth, this is what I object to, and what makes them different to all those you listed. For instance, I don't know if you realise this, but the queen is actually head of state, she is the equivalent of our president, purely through a fluke of birth. Can you see the difference? I would abolish the monarchy immediately and let them stand on their own feet. With it, I would scrap the house of lords and all other institutions that balatently operate on hereditary privilege. This is supposed to be the 21st century ffs!

You'd be gutted if we did anyway. 36098[/snapback] Well it would be a piss poor performance considering he has had 50 million to spend. He has to win the Champions league to appease me - this year.

hmm tell me what mourinho had won before he went to Porto? perhaps they should have gotten somebody with a better track record as well eh 36081[/snapback] Are you saying we SHOULDN'T get someone with a track record? Besides, didn't we try and get Mourinho? 36087[/snapback] My guess is he is saying you can't judge a persons track record based soley on the myopic view of how many trophies they have won. There's a wee bit more to it than that. 36092[/snapback] Nobody else wanted the job. That's the trouble when you jump ship mid season. Now he's here I say support him. If your argument was 100% true, then Robson would have won us SOMETHING!? Neither of us knows what will happen this season. Have your "last word" post if it makes you feel better, then let's drop it. We disagree. No more, no less. 36101[/snapback] First line - I agree it is a bloody stupid time to change managers, but in this case it is justified imo. Second line - Sorry, I don't follow. There's never any guarantees in football, you just have to stack up the odds in your favour as much as possible. Something which we have failed to do this time. Third line - Agree Forth line - OK, agree to disagree then,

hmm tell me what mourinho had won before he went to Porto? perhaps they should have gotten somebody with a better track record as well eh 36081[/snapback] Are you saying we SHOULDN'T get someone with a track record? Besides, didn't we try and get Mourinho? 36087[/snapback] Robson offered him a job as his assistant after he'd just got the Benfica job. He offered to move over for Jose after 2 years but Mourinho declined because he knew Robson couldn't have given up management. 36099[/snapback] Hearsay. Mind you, didn't our deluded manager claim he was first choice for the Chelsea job, but they had to settle for Mourinho instead? I bet they're kicking themselves now.

I thought we we're going to win the league, league cup, and FA cup tbh.

hmm tell me what mourinho had won before he went to Porto? perhaps they should have gotten somebody with a better track record as well eh 36081[/snapback] Are you saying we SHOULDN'T get someone with a track record? Besides, didn't we try and get Mourinho? 36087[/snapback] My guess is he is saying you can't judge a persons track record based soley on the myopic view of how many trophies they have won. There's a wee bit more to it than that.

So you list a bunch of managers who have won nothing, what does that prove? I wouldn't want any of them here anyway. But you are being very limited on your concept of success anyway. Many of those you've listed have only been a manager for a relative short period of time. Many have demonstrated much better league performances over the years than Souness on very limited budgets. Take Curbishley - he has establish Charlton as a premiership club and yet has spent less in the last ten years than Souness has in the past 2 months. It would be no surprise if they finish above us - like they did last year. So you have completely failed to show why Souness is a good manager because basically you can't, you are essentially basing his last 10 years in management as a success based on one league cup. Wow. And I haven't even mentioned all the bad stuff he has done - like being sacked from nearly every post he has got. I firmly believe Newcastle are a top 5 club, maybe even top 3, which is why I think we need a proven manager to get us there - just like the established top 5 clubs in this country presently have. Because as his CV shows, Souness is not the man. And yes, quite frankly you're boring me too.

In reality, in 4 figures. But they will bump it up to above 10,000 somehow.

Justify that statement please. It's bullshit basically.

Except no, he hasn't won something at every club he's been at. Two minor trophies in 13 years etc, etc. It's utterly ridiculous to compare him to Hughes either (not aimed at you Alex). Souness left Blackburn in a much worse state than Robson left us, and Hughes hasn't had 50 million to spend. We are presently on the same points, and despit the score, they could have easily won the last match! And while we are talking about success on managerial CVs, how does Souness compare to Robson - not even in the same class. How does he compare to Mourinho, Wenger, Ferguson or Benitez? You get the point - he is a SHIT manager, once and for all. ffs jw tbh

Ewood park looked pretty empty as well mind.

That's got to be a ManU fan on a wind up, shirley?

Erm, I think SAD only applies to winter, where the lack of natural sunlight can literally drive a person to depression. Winter's shite it really is. The only good thing is the football, but even then you freeze your bollocks off watching it. January and February are the worst - Christams is gone and there's still months before it gets warm.

35529[/snapback] Ditto, cheers Rikko, saved me the bother.

Nope, I've read it again and I don't see how I've misread or misconstrued you. Please tell me how I have. 35479[/snapback] 35481[/snapback] Oh OK, interesting. So for instance, if Luque doesn't play for 3 months, we can't criticise him because he hasn't had a full strengh team. And then if Luque comes back but Owen is out, we can't criticise him....... Face it, they're not going to get on the same team that often. I think it is perfectly fair to judge him now, if the squad is lacking this is at least partly his fault is it not? Also last winters signings - Boumsong, Babayaro, and Faye are also looking suspect.