More than 656,000 people have signed a petition calling for former Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair to have his knighthood removed if you agree use the link is below -
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this but as its one of the most active i thought it worth posting.
change.org/p/the-prime-mini … IxMQ%3D%3D
Tony Blair is to be knighted with the highest possible ranking in the new year honours list, Buckingham Palace has said.
Sir Tony, who held the keys to No 10 between 1997 and 2007, will be appointed a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the oldest and most senior British Order of Chivalry.
Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society. He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent, civilian lives and servicement in various conflicts. For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.
Tony Blair is the least deserving person of any public honour, particularly anything awarded by Her Majesty the Queen.
We petition the Prime Minister to petition Her Majesty to have this honour removed.
Signed.
Under no illusion that it will make any difference, but at least a protest has been noted.
Can’t stand the bloke, but it’s The Establishment innit…you can NEVER beat them. 
I find the whole order of the garter / thistle a nonsense to be honest. They dress up in silly robes and attend a special service once a year or whatever. Charles and William are members on account of their birth and now Camilla ffs. Andrew is a member (lol)!
I don’t really have an issue with the Royal Family, they do have some value in terms of tourism, but seriously all this nonsense. The origins of this order are essentially an aristocratic boys club of the highest order of flatulence. I remember Tony Blair always having a pint in a labour club on election night. Why would he even accept such an invitation?
Yes,its the wrong place,its supposed to be about trucks
Are there any Keir Starmer supporters on here that now won’t be voting for him - because he fully supports Blair joining him in Sir’ism…?
…If the answer is nope - then you’ve got your answer as to why Blair gets a knighthood instead of Jail already. 
Noremac:
I find the whole order of the garter / thistle a nonsense to be honest. They dress up in silly robes and attend a special service once a year or whatever. Charles and William are members on account of their birth and now Camilla ffs. Andrew is a member (lol)!
I don’t really have an issue with the Royal Family, they do have some value in terms of tourism, but seriously all this nonsense. The origins of this order are essentially an aristocratic boys club of the highest order of flatulence. I remember Tony Blair always having a pint in a labour club on election night. Why would he even accept such an invitation?
You say “they do have some value in terms of tourism”.
Absolutely marginal value if any. The French decided they could manage without royals some time ago. All the French palaces and other artefacts of the royal regime continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
Government won’t pay any heed to it,as it’s not on the official .GOV petition… we can but hope.
Dipster:
Noremac:
I find the whole order of the garter / thistle a nonsense to be honest. They dress up in silly robes and attend a special service once a year or whatever. Charles and William are members on account of their birth and now Camilla ffs. Andrew is a member (lol)!
I don’t really have an issue with the Royal Family, they do have some value in terms of tourism, but seriously all this nonsense. The origins of this order are essentially an aristocratic boys club of the highest order of flatulence. I remember Tony Blair always having a pint in a labour club on election night. Why would he even accept such an invitation?
You say “they do have some value in terms of tourism”.
Absolutely marginal value if any. The French decided they could manage without royals some time ago. All the French palaces and other artefacts of the royal regime continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
I’m no fan of the honours system and think it should be scrapped but Tony Blair was the best Prime Minister of my lifetime. Made a huge error on Iraq but done a huge amount of good as well.
Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Dipster:
Noremac:
I find the whole order of the garter / thistle a nonsense to be honest. They dress up in silly robes and attend a special service once a year or whatever. Charles and William are members on account of their birth and now Camilla ffs. Andrew is a member (lol)!
I don’t really have an issue with the Royal Family, they do have some value in terms of tourism, but seriously all this nonsense. The origins of this order are essentially an aristocratic boys club of the highest order of flatulence. I remember Tony Blair always having a pint in a labour club on election night. Why would he even accept such an invitation?
You say “they do have some value in terms of tourism”.
Absolutely marginal value if any. The French decided they could manage without royals some time ago. All the French palaces and other artefacts of the royal regime continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Indeed, at vast expense to us. A read you might found enlightening is “…And what do you do?” by former MP Norman Baker.
Monkey241:
continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Dipster:
Indeed, at vast expense to us. A read you might found enlightening is “…And what do you do?” by former MP Norman Baker.
Why should any money, taxed or not, go from the Crown Estate to the monarch?
The titular owner of The Crown Estate is the monarch.
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
If we had no monarchy, we would have no need to pay the Civil List, and all monies from the Crown Estate would go to central funds.
Looks like a double win for the country to me?
Franglais:
Monkey241:
continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Dipster:
Indeed, at vast expense to us. A read you might found enlightening is “…And what do you do?” by former MP Norman Baker.
Why should any money, taxed or not, go from the Crown Estate to the monarch?
The titular owner of The Crown Estate is the monarch.
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
If we had no monarchy, we would have no need to pay the Civil List, and all monies from the Crown Estate would go to central funds.
Looks like a double win for the country to me?
Your second line is not quite that clear cut. What you say is the popular line promoted, surprise, my the monarchy. But as the estates originated hundreds of years ago many things have changed. The book I mention covers this in depth and is well worth reading. The vast amounts of public money that is devoured by the monarchy and all things related to it is eye watering.
Dipster:
Franglais:
Monkey241:
continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Dipster:
Indeed, at vast expense to us. A read you might found enlightening is “…And what do you do?” by former MP Norman Baker.
Why should any money, taxed or not, go from the Crown Estate to the monarch?
The titular owner of The Crown Estate is the monarch.
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
If we had no monarchy, we would have no need to pay the Civil List, and all monies from the Crown Estate would go to central funds.
Looks like a double win for the country to me?
Your second line is not quite that clear cut. What you say is the popular line promoted, surprise, my the monarchy. But as the estates originated hundreds of years ago many things have changed. The book I mention covers this in depth and is well worth reading. The vast amounts of public money that is devoured by the monarchy and all things related to it is eye watering.
I pretty much agree with that.
.
I used “titular owner of The Crown Estate is the monarch” rather than simply say that the monarch actually owns the lands, to try and acknowledge what is happening, rather than what should be happening.
.
I haven`t come across that Norman Baker book before, so thanks for pointing it out.
Franglais:
Monkey241:
continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Dipster:
Indeed, at vast expense to us. A read you might found enlightening is “…And what do you do?” by former MP Norman Baker.
Why should any money, taxed or not, go from the Crown Estate to the monarch?
The titular owner of The Crown Estate is the monarch.
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
If we had no monarchy, we would have no need to pay the Civil List, and all monies from the Crown Estate would go to central funds.
Looks like a double win for the country to me?
So…which part of your property should the State appropriate?
If your car is half decent I’ll take it
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Monkey241:
continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Dipster:
Indeed, at vast expense to us. A read you might found enlightening is “…And what do you do?” by former MP Norman Baker.
Why should any money, taxed or not, go from the Crown Estate to the monarch?
The titular owner of The Crown Estate is the monarch.
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
If we had no monarchy, we would have no need to pay the Civil List, and all monies from the Crown Estate would go to central funds.
Looks like a double win for the country to me?
So…which part of your property should the State appropriate?
If your car is half decent I’ll take it
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
If I had a tied cottage, or lived in a property by virtue of my work, that wouldnt be my property would it? If I am made redundant I dont get to keep living above the shop, nor do I get to keep my income.
If Mrs Windsor has a few quid in her bank account then she can keep it. And when the time comes, her beneficiaries can pay the appropriate taxes on it.
Franglais:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Monkey241:
continue to attract considerable numbers of tourists. So I see no value in the monarchy we continue to support at vast expense to us.
At vast expense to us?
Crown Estate effectively pays the Civil List whilst paying a huge chunk of tax to HM Treasury
Dipster:
Indeed, at vast expense to us. A read you might found enlightening is “…And what do you do?” by former MP Norman Baker.
Why should any money, taxed or not, go from the Crown Estate to the monarch?
The titular owner of The Crown Estate is the monarch.
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
If we had no monarchy, we would have no need to pay the Civil List, and all monies from the Crown Estate would go to central funds.
Looks like a double win for the country to me?
So…which part of your property should the State appropriate?
If your car is half decent I’ll take it
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
If I had a tied cottage, or lived in a property by virtue of my work, that wouldnt be my property would it? If I am made redundant I dont get to keep living above the shop, nor do I get to keep my income.
If Mrs Windsor has a few quid in her bank account then she can keep it. And when the time comes, her beneficiaries can pay the appropriate taxes on it.
It isn’t a tied cottage though.
The monarchy owns the cottage
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
It isn’t a tied cottage though.
The monarchy owns the cottage
Yes, the monarch…
Not Mrs Windsor.
Just to remind you:
Franglais:
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
Franglais:
Monkey241:
It isn’t a tied cottage though.
The monarchy owns the cottage
Yes, the monarch…
Not Mrs Windsor.
Just to remind you:
Franglais:
If no monarchy then ownership would go the state.
The Queen currently embodies the Crown.
Legally the property belongs to the Crown …not the State.
Sure, the law can be changed in the same way we could legally remove everything you own by changing the law. But the law would also have to change to transfer it to the State - legally that isn’t a default position.
That wouldn’t alter the legal position NOW… which stands as the Queen not living in a tied cottage.
Why the f$ck that needed explaining is beyond me.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk