NRL General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
minimum wage for NRLW is $10,000
 
Morkel said:
All the more impressive that the Queen could have been a royal fuckwit, except she dedicated her life to being an example of a decent human being. There are far too few of those unfortunately.
Click to expand...
In your opinion yes, to many the crown is ruled by monsters who've caused innumerable misery.

I don't feel strongly about some "royal" wearing stolen jewels on her head, I'm ambivalent about the matter but I totally understand why some would think she's the devil spawn.

Would probably have more respect for that family if they weren't protecting a pedo.
 
Tom Dearden just recorded the longest distance ever covered by a player in a game since the data started being collected in 2019.

11, 344m in 93 minutes
 
Kimlo said:
In your opinion yes, to many the crown is ruled by monsters who've caused innumerable misery.

I don't feel strongly about some "royal" wearing stolen jewels on her head, I'm ambivalent about the matter but I totally understand why some would think she's the devil spawn.

Would probably have more respect for that family if they weren't protecting a pedo.
Click to expand...

I dont like the Royal family, but i think the Queen was actually a decent human being and deserved way more respect than she was given in this instance.
 
the Manly owners have reportedly told Des to choose two assistants to be his succession plan, lol.
 
Wolfie said:
I dont like the Royal family, but i think the Queen was actually a decent human being and deserved way more respect than she was given in this instance.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with dancing on graves, but qualifying someone as a decent human being is quite subjective. As head of state in many commonwealth countries for 70 years, there is certainly a case to be made that she could have relinquished her colonies to the respective governments, retained her title as Queen of England, and been seen as a far better human being. As a figurehead ruler, you kind of have to take the bad with the good, and any wrongdoing by your constituent political bodies reflects back onto you as the "leader".

I think that aboriginal peoples in all colonised countries would have a valid reason for their dislike of the royals. If, however, Australia had become a republic, that vitriol may have been levelled at QE2 for a different reason.

It seems to me that the many good deeds that the royals do are merely cheaper/easier options for good publicity. They could easily forego all their titles and still be wealthy, but they don't, and so they must accept the criticisms they receive.

We can't let ourselves be fooled into thinking that the fairytales around the royals are their only side. There most certainly is a dark history to the entire family, and while they may make some restitutions, there remains more that they could easily (or with difficulty) do. For example, they could easily make an example out of their pedophile prince instead of hiding him away and preventing the standard course of legal investigations.

However, I understand the love for the Queen and the royals. It's like growing up watching Neighbours; you get attached to the characters. Like how noone is willing to believe in Harold's sex dungeon. He's just seems like too nice a guy, does all that charity work and plays the Tuba (like the queen and her costumes and corgies).
 
Organix said:
I don't agree with dancing on graves, but qualifying someone as a decent human being is quite subjective. As head of state in many commonwealth countries for 70 years, there is certainly a case to be made that she could have relinquished her colonies to the respective governments, retained her title as Queen of England, and been seen as a far better human being. As a figurehead ruler, you kind of have to take the bad with the good, and any wrongdoing by your constituent political bodies reflects back onto you as the "leader".

I think that aboriginal peoples in all colonised countries would have a valid reason for their dislike of the royals. If, however, Australia had become a republic, that vitriol may have been levelled at QE2 for a different reason.

It seems to me that the many good deeds that the royals do are merely cheaper/easier options for good publicity. They could easily forego all their titles and still be wealthy, but they don't, and so they must accept the criticisms they receive.

We can't let ourselves be fooled into thinking that the fairytales around the royals are their only side. There most certainly is a dark history to the entire family, and while they may make some restitutions, there remains more that they could easily (or with difficulty) do. For example, they could easily make an example out of their pedophile prince instead of hiding him away and preventing the standard course of legal investigations.

However, I understand the love for the Queen and the royals. It's like growing up watching Neighbours; you get attached to the characters. Like how noone is willing to believe in Harold's sex dungeon. He's just seems like too nice a guy, does all that charity work and plays the Tuba (like the queen and her costumes and corgies).
Click to expand...
That was Alf Stewart btw.
 
Old Mate said:
That was Alf Stewart btw.
Click to expand...
Ah shit, I knew I messed it up. Well, that renders my whole point moot.

In any case, the question needs to be asked not whether the Queen was good or not, but rather what actual purpose do the royals serve for Australia? Do we really need them, and thus do we really need to be a constitutional monarchy?

It seems to me that the last time we actually got close to getting rid of them, they used one of their few remaining powers to swap out the elected Prime Minister. So, I am interested actually to see if we even can separate from the monarchy, and this elaborate entertainment franchise that the royal family has become.
 
The review of the Eels by Nathan Brown has come in and the word "Nepotism" gets some game time

the key points are:

— There was a perception of nepotism in the appointment of staff and players

— Better connection needed from NRL to Flegg and to Junior Reps

— Acknowledgment of all staff across all programs could be better

— Skill development of players could be better with the ‘Eels philosophy’

— Role clarity needs to be better communicated and the communication across all roles needs to be clearer.

the report was presented to the Parramatta board on August 31 and there is no suggestion (at least in the "briefing document obtained by Fox Sports") that the the nepotism relates Brad Arthar or his son Jakob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 693
1:25:30
NRL Round 12, 1998 - Canberra Raiders vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Financeguy
  • theshed
  • JoeldTrafford
  • Foordy
  • barker
  • johnny plath
  • Brocko
  • Jazza
  • Locky24
  • Elcapitano20
  • Been2long
  • Jedhead
  • BRC088
  • bert_lifts
  • Sproj
  • Santa
  • BroncsNBundy
... and 4 more.
Total: 249 (members: 24, guests: 225)
Robots: 222
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.