@raisingirl At least we should be thankful that the Snooker has finally finished - it took over practically every channel at various times - almost impossible to avoid. The only advantage was that it usually helped you nod off after a day of gardening
Having general news/current affairs programmes tailored specifically to exclude certain topics is a bit like what internet algorithms do, resulting in the validation of some extreme views. It's good for humans to have their ideas challenged.
Those who support the monarchy aren't having their ideas challenged by the BBC coverage. That was my point.
If anybody challenges the idea of a Monarchy, which brings in billions of pounds a year from tourism, just say we could have had a President Blair or President Boris. Worse still President May or President Truss. I rest my case.
Having general news/current affairs programmes tailored specifically to exclude certain topics is a bit like what internet algorithms do, resulting in the validation of some extreme views. It's good for humans to have their ideas challenged.
Those who support the monarchy aren't having their ideas challenged by the BBC coverage. That was my point.
If anybody challenges the idea of a Monarchy, which brings in billions of pounds a year from tourism, just say we could have had a President Blair or President Boris. Worse still President May or President Truss. I rest my case.
it's a little fanciful to suggest that A: tourists only come because of the monarchy, or B; tourist wouldn't come if they were gone.
Having general news/current affairs programmes tailored specifically to exclude certain topics is a bit like what internet algorithms do, resulting in the validation of some extreme views. It's good for humans to have their ideas challenged.
Those who support the monarchy aren't having their ideas challenged by the BBC coverage. That was my point.
If tourism is the best justification for the Monarchy that you can think of then you don't have much of an argument. As for the president, it would be someone who we chose, not someone foisted on us. How about President David Attenborough?
If tourism is the best justification for the Monarchy that you can think of then you don't have much of an argument. As for the president, it would be someone who we chose, not someone foisted on us. How about President David Attenborough?
Do you honestly think he’d stand for election? The sort of people who’d want to be ‘in charge’ and would enjoy it are, on current evidence, the likes of Boris and Trump 😱
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
You're right, Dove - anyone who wants the job shouldn't be allowed to even apply for it, and anyone who would be any good at the job wouldn't want to apply.
We already have an elected head of state, Rishi Sunak. The King is purely decorative. (heaven forbid he actually tries to wield his theoretical power to remove the prime minister - then we really would have a constitutional crisis). But that wasn't my point. There was an article this evening on the news which mentioned there are some people with a different view, which I was glad to see. I accept that the coronation is news and ought to be covered. I don't accept that the rehearsals that I am aware are happening every night are news for anyone except the people trying to drive around London at night this week - and then it's a minor traffic news story. I have no issue with reporting that there will be heightened security for all the Heads of State. I am thoroughly bored with interviews with people who knitted a post box cover of Camilla, hand embroidered their bunting or are going to London and are terribly excited about it. The lady who remembered watching the last coronation was mildly interesting; the people who are holding a street party are not. It's not that it's covered, its the total saturation of all the trivia that is wearing
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Having general news/current affairs programmes tailored specifically to exclude certain topics is a bit like what internet algorithms do, resulting in the validation of some extreme views. It's good for humans to have their ideas challenged.
Those who support the monarchy aren't having their ideas challenged by the BBC coverage. That was my point.
If anybody challenges the idea of a Monarchy, which brings in billions of pounds a year from tourism, just say we could have had a President Blair or President Boris. Worse still President May or President Truss. I rest my case.
it's a little fanciful to suggest that A: tourists only come because of the monarchy, or B; tourist wouldn't come if they were gone.
I didn't say tourists only come because of the Monarchy, but many are fascinated by the Monarchy and that draws them here in the first place. Many would still come irrespective of the Monarchy, but many others wouldn't.
Do you honestly think he’d stand for election? The sort of people who’d want to be ‘in charge’ and would enjoy it are, on current evidence, the likes of Boris and Trump 😱
We could have a president who has a purely honorary role, with little or no actual power.
Posts
If anybody challenges the idea of a Monarchy, which brings in billions of pounds a year from tourism, just say we could have had a President Blair or President Boris. Worse still President May or President Truss. I rest my case.
A: tourists only come because of the monarchy, or
B; tourist wouldn't come if they were gone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65376605
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
who’d want to be ‘in charge’ and would enjoy it are, on current evidence, the likes of Boris and Trump 😱
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I didn't say tourists only come because of the Monarchy, but many are fascinated by the Monarchy and that draws them here in the first place. Many would still come irrespective of the Monarchy, but many others wouldn't.