Jubilee - Have a good one if that's what floats your boat

Why is it that, if the Jubilee celebrations leave you cold, you are marked out as a party pooper?

I have nothing against the Royal Family personally. I have only ever met the Duke of Cornwall and the only thing that sticks in my memory of that meeting is that he has a severe case of dandruff. However, I don't see why I should celebrate being ruled by a family that has enjoyed centuries of privilege, hereditary wealth and influence. It's not the people that I object to but the system. I don't want to be a subject I want to be a citizen and I don't want to celebrate being ruled by a person I have never had a chance to vote for.

Does this make me a party pooper? Well it shouldn't should it? I accept that a lot of people want to celebrate the Jubilee - good luck to you all, I sincerely hope you have a great time and remember it for years to come. We should encourage community interaction and break down barriers between people.

Nevertheless, if we are living under the rule of a democratic monarchy, shouldn't I be allowed to just let the whole occasion pass me by if I'm not interested. I don't want to join in with the celebrations and I don't want to poop on any parties either.

This is the principle that is is really making me angry at the moment. It seems that being a republican is tantamount to social heresy. Fair enough, we are told that the monarchy has a 80% approval rating. Does this justify a fierce subliminal campaign that aims to have those opposed to the establishment view labelled at best as 'party poopers' and, more worryingly, as extremists or anarchists.

Surely the BBC is supposed to be impartial. Yet we are bombarded every evening with fawning coverage - not just of factual events but with opinion as to "how hard the Queen works", "what a great institution the monarchy is" or "how the world is looking on with envy".

Take this typical BBC 'news' report.

At first read it seems fairly balanced - hell, they even mention that Republicans are holding a protest. It must be reasonably balanced - right?

Yet it isn't. The BBC manages to report as fact what is opinion when it supports the pro-monarchy stance and as opinion what is fact when it doesn't.

For example:

"Prime Minister David Cameron, who will attend a Jubilee party in Downing Street, paid tribute to the 86-year-old Queen during an interview on BBC One's Andrew Marr programme, saying: "Her insight and her sharpness is extraordinary and I don't see any sign of her working less hard."

This extract shows how great importance is given to the the opinion that the Queen is hard working and has excellent judgement. It is an opinion held by our elected Prime Minister so it must be factually correct.

On the other jand we are told:

"The anti-monarchy group, Republic, has said it will hold a demonstration against what they call an unelected, unaccountable monarch."

So the indisputable facts that the monarchy is unelected and unaccountable are brushed under the carpet as being a mere opinion.

This type of subliminal bias is wrong and is the anathema of truly independent and factual reporting.

Is it any wonder that that with type of relentless, dip-feed propaganda, the monarchy has such a high approval rating. I wonder what would happen if there were more reporting of Royal scandals and abuses. The thing is, this isn't likely to happen and even now I can hear the sound of me being labelled as an extremist and a trouble maker - or, perhaps, just a party pooper.