Just doing my politics homework, yo!

I need to outline six criticisms of the British Monarchy, and six arguements in favour of the British Monarchy, and I'm interested in your thoughts! ;D

Ooh, I could swing either way on this issue.

They're good because of the tourism they bring into the country, and it's nice to keep with tradition. Plus Harry is HAWT and who wouldn't want to be a Queen? At least over here we have a chance at it! ;D

Bad because... well, I don't know how much they cost, but I'm sure they cost us a lot of money! And William's girlfriend is a twat. She has to go.

lol willys girlfriend is nice i wouldn't kick her out of my bed. in fact i'll let her tie me up, cover me with weird and wonderful food, and eat off me like i was a banquet table lol.

LOL i can just see ryan submitting your point here!

I've got one argument in favor, and one against, being people, as they are best and worst-case scenarios.

Gen. Bernadotte, elected by the Swedes to serve as king, was a smashing success. A peaceful reign with much economic growth and prosperity.

And then you have monarchs like... Caligula.

I think the Monarchy are good

They are major players in our countries history, far cheaper than having a president, they bring the country quite alot of money due to tourism, the only bad thing I can think of is that the Queen/King has no choice but to let laws pass.

Well they CAN overrule a law, that right hasn't been taken away from them, but I don't think they'd dare to!

Yes it has, when new laws are passed the Queen can send it back to the House of Lords once for it to be very slightly changed, absolute minimum then she has no choice but to sign it.

When I studied law at A Level in 2006 I wasn't told that, unless it's changed since then.
What if she REFUSED to sign it? Would they imprison her? Hahaha that'd be hilarious.

I studied it in 2005 and we had to take citizenship, both of which told us that, you're taught about it if you take law at university as well, that could be why you don't know as most of what you are taught in A-level law is a load of crap which is why good uni's don't accept it, if she refuses to sign, she has to stand down.

Actually most of the unis accept it (including Cambridge and Oxford, they have not blacklisted it, I actually read it on The Times last night, finding that page right now is proving to be a bitch though), they only don't like it because it covers most of what you study in your first year which would create a need for a 2 year degree, hence them not getting much money out of you.
In A Level Law you learn all the basics of civil and criminal including mens rea and actus reus, you learn far too many cases and you certainly aren't taught 'a load of crap'. My very good friend who studied Law with me at college is now studying it at Coventry and said that studying it at A Level has been invaluable to her; the teaching was of a much higher quality back at college and she is also way ahead of her peers.
And I'm studying Law with the OU starting in Feb because in my experience real university is a joke and overpriced.

The times has the worst navigation ever, either that or we are both retards, no one answer that! You learn at uni that mens rea and actus reus is virtually unheard of in the real world of law. I've learnt there is a reason for the OU being so cheap and why most avoid it, poor quality courses that get you nowhere in life. I took a course in genetics on the side while I was at college, GCSE's were more challenging, you needed 15% to pass! One of our maths teachers Mr Carmicheal 'went' to the OU he had to have an answer book for all his textbooks, retard!!!! Also, he looked like a tortoise.

Gosh you like to shoot people down don't you?! Um the course is £2000 a year, and in fact companies PRAISE the OU as it proves that their students are able to work independently and aren't there just for the social life.
And 'most avoid it', eh? Well it has something like 120,000 students, and has come second in the national student satisfaction survey. Oh and the pass rate is like at any other uni: 40%. Then 50% for a 2:2, 60% for a 2:1 and 70% for a first.
I went to Kent Uni in 2006 and left in Jan of this year in my second year; I was studying for a Masters in Drama, a 4 year course. It was a very difficult course to get onto but I was one of the lucky ones. However, I received 6 hours of tuition a week. For £3,000. They taught us nothing and we pretty much spent the rest of the time drunk. I'd call that a 'poor quality course'.

The majority of vocational courses are only 6 hours a week, which you would of found out if you had looked into tuition time before attending.
I study Biology and Geography, I only have 12 hours a week of lectures five 9ams :(, but then I have 6-9 hours worth of practicals depending on whether I have two or three, then I have a tutorial where we are tested randomly on a lecture we have had in that term. Then for an hour a week we have game show, its where everyone has a keypad and we are questioned on a random topic in our course, most days I'm at Uni 9-5:30, lectures aren't the only thing you should be attending, the whole point of Uni is to actually do some work yourself instead of being babied like you are at school and college. For every hour you have a lecture, you are meant to be doing independant work.
I have two friends at my uni who are doing Drama, not to masters, just a degree, they both have 6 hours of lectures, but then they have 10 hours of official rehearsals and script studies a week, though there first lecture they had to be omeba's I wish I could of seen that!
You chose to attend that course, you could of spent time educating yourself instead of getting drunk.
You'll find every uni is first and second at everything, you go to open days and everyone of them is the best for satisfaction and the best for employment rates, means nothing, I remember Notthingham and Manchester Uni oddly enough were both the second best for student welfare, hmmmm.
When I did my open uni course, they kept sending us free things like USB sticks, software and laptop cases to bribe students as there was a poor uptake that year, if you passed which was 15% you got a free copy of Microsoft Office, I remember quite a few people sold them back to computer shops haha nothing like a good profit.

GOSH, YO - I NEVER GOT ANY FREE STUFF WHEN I DID MY OU COURSES. BUT I KNOW A LOT OF UNIS ARE NOW GIVING AWAY FREE LAPTOPS TO GET STUDENTS!

YOU'LL FIND OU COURSES, WHEN YOU GET BEYOND LEVEL-ONE TEN-POINTERS, HAVE VERY HIGH STANDARDS, YO. LIKE OTHER UNIS WILL GIVE YOU A FIRST FOR JUST GETTING 70%, BUT WITH THE OU, YOU NEED 85% TO GET A FIRST, YO. THEY HAVE TO MAKE THEIR STANDARDS HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S LONG DISTANCE AND OLD FASHIONED PEOPLE ARE SUSPICIOUS OF IT. BUT YOU'LL FIND THE OU HAS A VERY GOOD NAME AMONGST PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY LOOKED INTO IT, AND ACTUAL SCHOLARS WHO ARE RESEARCHING AND PUBLISHING. THEY ARE ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF SOME RESEARCH - DEPENDS ON THE SUBJECT, OF COURSE, BUT WHEN I WAS IN CANADA THE PROF DOING THE MA COURSE IN POSTMODERNISM MENTIONED THE OU AS BEING THE MOST CUTTING EDGE, INTERNATIONALLY, IN POSTMODERNISM. THEY MAKE THEIR LEVEL ONE SHORT COURSES VERY EASY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN AWAY FROM EDUCATION, BUT THEY SOON STEP UP THE STANDARDS, YO. PERSONALLY, I FIND THEIR MATHS COURSES TO BE BRILLIANT, YO. NOT SO SURE ABOUT SCIENCE - LIKE I'D THINK WITH THINGS LIKE BIOLOGY IT'S BETTER TO BE ATTENDING A UNI WITH A LAB THAT YOU CAN GO IN EVERY DAY. THE OU HAVE SUMMER SCHOOLS (WHICH ARE JOLLY INTENSIVE, GOSH, YO!) BUT I THINK FOR LAB-BASED SCIENCES, ATTENDING A UNI IS BETTER.

AS FOR UNIS PEOPLE ATTEND, IT TOTALLY DEPENDS ON THE UNI. THE ONE I'M AT NOW IS ABSOLUTELY SHITE, YO. THE OU IS FAR FAR SUPERIOR IN STANDARDS. BUT THE ONE I ATTENDED FOR MY ENGLISH DEGREE WAS BRILLIANT. WE ONLY HAD ABOUT 6 HOURS OF TUITION A WEEK, BUT, LIKE, YOU HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RESOURCES IN THE LIBRARY AND SPEND TIME READING AND WRITING YOUR ESSAYS, AND GET REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK IN TUTORIALS (BACK IN THE DAY WHEN HARDLY ANYONE WENT TO UNI AND SO YOU GOT ONE-ON-ONE TUTORIALS, YO! GOSH, THEY WERE GREAT!). IT'S QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY THAT MATTERS. THERE ARE WAY MORE HOURS OF TUITION AT MY CRAP COURSE NOW, AND WAY POORER QUALITY.

Yeah the course I'm doing is a Level 2 one since I already have a basic knowledge of Law, which is why the standards are much higher.

And gosh, does anyone do anything OTHER than drink in their first year? Haha. Sure I had rehearsals to go to but the performances we had to produce were such shit... all interpretive movement and crap like that. I also hated most of the prima-donnas I had to work with... I would have expected much more from the university since we get charged so much. One of the teachers was a real rude bitch as well, AND she borrowed my lighter and never gave it back! Such a cow ;D

And I did do a lot of research into it... it was the only uni with a 50-50 spread of theoretical and practical work, places such as Warwick were 70% theory. They don't publish things such as tuition hours and when I went to my audition they never mentioned how short the hours were.

In my first year I had 10 hours which was just enough... and yeah we were meant to study for 40 hours a week sure but there's only so much post modernism you can take. I was averaging a 2:1 in my first year so even though I did get drunk a lot I still did well, without all the reading I should have done. It was just a poor quality course with bad teachers (one was a gay German and I don't think anyone could understand him). All the lectures consisted of the lecturers reading off a PowerPoint presentation in a monotone. I knew I couldn't handle classic lectures which is why I chose a subject that is mainly practical... but unfortunately we still had classic lectures.
I found it much more strict than my college which I also didn't take to very well. At college it was a case of, don't do the homework and you'll fail. At uni it was all, don't do the homework and we will write to your parents and give you a disciplinary! My friend, at age 20, had a letter sent home to her parents because she missed so many seminars and lectures! And she's on track for a 2:1 despite never going to 80% of her lectures in all the 3 years she's been there.

Anyway, I'm done defending myself. Think what you like from here on out Transit.

That's Royal Prerogative. It totally still exists. She must also still give her consent to go to war, open parliament, and appoint Prime Ministers.

If Charles becomes King he will have to use his Royal Prerogative to change a law made in 1700, which states that no monarch may be married to a Roman Catholic, as Camilla is Catholic, yo!

Though it's a strange circle - because Royal Prerogative only exists because it has never been tryanously exercised. The idea is that the monarch wields the power to declare war/change laws- but doesn't. And that's where its sanctity lay.

Wouldn't a monarchy hold the same social problems that are present with a dictatorship?

If it were an absolute monarchy, sure! But not so much with a constitutional. Unless there are such things as constitutional dictatorships? ;D

Of course there's such a thing... haven't you ever heard of George W. Bush?

Ok, right highlight what a dictatorship is, then highlight what a monarchy is, then you'll get your answer.

GOSH. I'VE JUST REALISED THIS IS A THREAD WHERE RYAN SHAMELESSLY WANTS US TO HELP HIM WITH HIS HOMEWORK. WELL. THE MONARCHY IS JOLLY GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY YO. ALL THE MONEY BROUGHT IN THROUGH TOURISM. THEY APPEAL TO THE FOREIGNERZ. ALL THAT BORING BRITISH HISTORY - PEOPLE LOVE IT, YO! THEY FLOCK TO BUCKINGHAM PALACE AND WINDSOR CASTLE.

BUT, LIKE, THE QUEEN IS GETTING A BIT FAT, YO. HER JOWLS DO NOT LOOK ATTRACTIVE ON OUR COINS. THAT IS A SERIOUS DRAWBACK. I WANT AN ATTRACTIVE FACE ON MY MONEY YO!

Hahaha I totally agree. We can't have Charles on our money either, because of the ears, and William is dreadfully thin on top. Harry is the only reasonable solution!