Prince Harry, mental health role model...

Status
Not open for further replies.
What scares me is what's her name has desirers to become President one day and if she does what would become of Harry, would he become the first lady or just do as your told first man, just thinking about it is scary enough.
 
I meant preaching according this this definition:

“the giving of moral advice in a pompously self-righteous way”.

Harry is a Royal not a politician. He is English, not American. And he actually admits to not understanding the very subject he publicly accuses of being ‘bonkers’.

How would you feel if some clueless foreigner started having a go at the fabric of U.K. society?

Like BBC reporters you mean ?
 
So, first it was the U.K. that was overtly intrusive and institutionally racist.

Now it’s the US Constitution that’s wrong. Well, he says it’s wrong (or bonkers in fact), but also says he doesn’t understand it.

To summarise: not his country... not his politics... not his business... and he confesses he doesn’t understand it. But he’s still gonna preach to you about it...

I think George the Third had issues with our constitution as well. I see a trend here :p
 
Monarchs are better for the Constitution than presidents. In Australia, we do not do things by halves, we elect real idiots. And that is not 'fake news'.
 
Monarchs are better for the Constitution than presidents. In Australia, we do not do things by halves, we elect real idiots. And that is not 'fake news'.
If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.......
Much the same with British politicians. . . . .
 
There have been better politicians than we seem to have now but it takes a LONG time for their true worth to be determined.
George Washington's greatness was because he stood down after two terms. He could have been king or president for life if he so desired.
 
If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.......
Much the same with British politicians. . . . .
Most politicians are already rich, its more a power thing and having control, that's if you are in charge of course and of course when they are in charge they look after all their rich friends in business or rich farmers, well in our country anyway and bugger the poor working man and they tax us on everything and always thinking off how they can get more money out of out hip pocket, and it don't matter who is in power, they are also good at lying to our faces and keeping a straight face themselves, they have no consious at all.

Ashley
 
Most politicians are already rich, its more a power thing and having control, that's if you are in charge of course and of course when they are in charge they look after all their rich friends in business or rich farmers, well in our country anyway and bugger the poor working man and they tax us on everything and always thinking off how they can get more money out of out hip pocket, and it don't matter who is in power, they are also good at lying to our faces and keeping a straight face themselves, they have no consious at all.

Ashley
No dispute with this, except not all MPs were rich when they went into politics. Those that were rich employed minions to do a lot of their constituency work as their primary aim is to their political party. Some do it all, but not many. If they can delegate the work while they go off on their 2/3 hour lunches, they are doing well considering nobody gets longer holidays , when Parliament is not sitting, than they do.
 
Here each ward (seat) and party members votes who they want to run in that ward, but most of the time the big boys of the party will over ride that person who has devoted their life to their party for someone who is a friend of the big boys or one who has little though of the people of that ward, money, power or if its a tight seat one who is popular with the people who has no idea at all, will be handed that seat to get voted in, and its the same everywhere, in the great US of A anyone can become President if you have a lot and I mean a lot of money, very rare to see a average person become President with out lots of money to back them.
 
She could be either A: an unknowing idiot or B: well aware but playing you or C: an idiot playing you.
I am not longer amazed that somebody with her outlook could get elected. Half of the people in the House are crooks of one kind or another. Sad. Really sad. Guess what? They won the election.
 
Perhaps we should be teaching more about this man in our schools?

 
I'm afraid to say that the selection process sometimes leave a lot to desire, there have been one or two recent MPs who have had to stand down because they were not fit enough to do their job. I do believe a rigid medical should be compulsory before anyone stands for Parliament, this wouldn't keep out candidates for The Monster Raving Lunatic Party for instance- but you hey my drift.
 
I'm afraid to say that the selection process sometimes leave a lot to desire, there have been one or two recent MPs who have had to stand down because they were not fit enough to do their job. I do believe a rigid medical should be compulsory before anyone stands for Parliament, this wouldn't keep out candidates for The Monster Raving Lunatic Party for instance- but you hey my drift.
That's discrimination, Bernhard, they won't let you get away with that..
What we actually need is a better and more discerning class of voter :)
 
There’s a fabulous irony here I believe.

We have spent years being told that ‘just because I’m a (insert as required) doesn’t mean I can’t do the job’.

But the bottom line is that some jobs require bloody hard graft, long hours, extreme focus, very high resilience to stress etc, etc, etc. Some jobs require high intellect, some high physical strength, some high dexterity, etc.

We‘ve been taught to ignore all of that and believe that anyone can do any job. The result is many jobs being done to a lesser standard and many people out of their depth and suffering as a consequence !

I remember Sir Alan Sugar, on The Apprentice, being slated and labelled with all sorts bigotry terms simply becasue he enquired into the personal affairs of a single mum.

He wasn’t being discriminatory at all, he was being realistic. He knew the effort, focus, dedication and hours that were going to be required and wanted to ensure she also understood this and seriously considered her ability to both things with her full focus (be his apprentice and be a successful mum) or three things if you consider such luxuries as a social life !

These days, when interviewing people, you’re not even allowed to enquire about those things by law. Thus frequently leading to the wrong people getting the jobs who then suffer because of it.

And all this is happening at the same time as we‘re being told to be more aware of people’s mental health... a problem being made far worse by the above...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top