would you acknowledge the salutation awarded to peers?

Question

I for one would not accept even calling them " peers" considaring some of the scum that have been given these titles, and the way they have been allocated, going back before L. Lucan to the present day. Numbers to many to display. there are some good men/women in the upper house, but they are all meaningless to me, I have worked for my bread and butter, but most of these people abuse the station they have gained

Answer 1

i agree.....i believe they are out for what they can get myself and they dont care if they trample on the common man to get it either.... they all are out for what they can get.. they give false promises and dont deliver... then go get big houses and flash cars ... all on the working man!

Answer 2

Unless you were actually in the House of Lords, or they were a member of the Royal Family, or you were employed by them, then you wouldn't have to call them anything but their first name (my former MP is now a member of the House of Lords and I still call him by his first name).

You are right that many are good people, and they often talk a whole lot more sense than those in the House of Commons! But they are no different than any group in society - there's always one or two bad ones, but we shouldn't tarnish all of them with the same brush.

Answer 3

I agree, the whole thing is just an excuse to have a nice roast lunch and a few brandies, then sleep it off in the Chamber and get paid for it.

Answer 4

for me it depends on who it is ... Lord Norman Foster or Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber have made genuine contributions over a period of decades in their own fields of architecture and music...

whereas Lord Archer is a lying cheating scumbag who lied in court under oath and got his wife and friends to back him up...

so, I'd say Lord Foster to Britains greatest architect and Lord Webber to Britains most successful composer, but I'd say sod off bastard to the author !