Harry and Meghan
Discussion
Halb said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: A quid a year covers the royals I believe.
I've said before I'm not a royalist but it's difficult to get too bothered about it.
.
One pound a year, spent on them instead of other stuff? That's not much of a justification for keeping the job lot.I've said before I'm not a royalist but it's difficult to get too bothered about it.
.
That's the sort of context that we need when we talk about spending millions (on anything).
Halb said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: A quid a year covers the royals I believe.
I've said before I'm not a royalist but it's difficult to get too bothered about it.
.
One pound a year, spent on them instead of other stuff? That's not much of a justification for keeping the job lot.I've said before I'm not a royalist but it's difficult to get too bothered about it.
.
SpeckledJim said:
How many ambulances would it run? How many lives a year does an ambulance crew save? How many community defibrillators does it buy? Could we have a lifeboat station for that much?
That's the sort of context that we need when we talk about spending millions (on anything).
quite.That's the sort of context that we need when we talk about spending millions (on anything).
Mort7 said:
How is that in any way unreasonable? 
Continuing with their royal duties will see them protected by the state. If they run away to become celebrities and their free security is removed, and they then pay for their own security they will also be protected. If their security is removed and they refuse to pay for their own, and suffer as a result, then of course it will be their own fault. Don't forget that they will always have the option to return to royal duties should they wish.
Here's an alternative suggestion. Crowdfunding (or maybe that should be crown funding). If they lose their state protection then they could use their Instagram account to ask for support. Royal sympathisers like you could then support them on a regular basis, without taking money from the Treasury, and detractors like me, who feel they should fund all aspects of their new life wouldn't have to contribute a penny.
Not sure that they would raise enough to fund their requirements though, as the prevailing attitude seem to be 'no duties, no money'. All of which is a moot point anyway, because the reality is that they will continue to be funded, and the Royals and the Government will do their utmost to suppress the truth from those of us who will be supporting their opulent, wasteful, self-indulgent and hypocritical lifestyle.
Crowdfunding the royals entirely seems an excellent idea, ending all arguments about their popularity and usefulness. Continuing with their royal duties will see them protected by the state. If they run away to become celebrities and their free security is removed, and they then pay for their own security they will also be protected. If their security is removed and they refuse to pay for their own, and suffer as a result, then of course it will be their own fault. Don't forget that they will always have the option to return to royal duties should they wish.Here's an alternative suggestion. Crowdfunding (or maybe that should be crown funding). If they lose their state protection then they could use their Instagram account to ask for support. Royal sympathisers like you could then support them on a regular basis, without taking money from the Treasury, and detractors like me, who feel they should fund all aspects of their new life wouldn't have to contribute a penny.
Not sure that they would raise enough to fund their requirements though, as the prevailing attitude seem to be 'no duties, no money'. All of which is a moot point anyway, because the reality is that they will continue to be funded, and the Royals and the Government will do their utmost to suppress the truth from those of us who will be supporting their opulent, wasteful, self-indulgent and hypocritical lifestyle.
SpeckledJim said:
How many ambulances would it run? How many lives a year does an ambulance crew save? How many community defibrillators does it buy? Could we have a lifeboat station for that much?
That's the sort of context that we need when we talk about spending millions (on anything).
Chris Grayling gave £50M to a ferry company that didn't own any ferries.That's the sort of context that we need when we talk about spending millions (on anything).
In fact someone set up a website to keep track of it all.
https://howmuchmoneyhaschrisgraylingwasted.org/
I agree with the principle but this is buttons.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:SpeckledJim said:
How many ambulances would it run? How many lives a year does an ambulance crew save? How many community defibrillators does it buy? Could we have a lifeboat station for that much?
That's the sort of context that we need when we talk about spending millions (on anything).
Chris Grayling gave £50M to a ferry company that didn't own any ferries.That's the sort of context that we need when we talk about spending millions (on anything).
In fact someone set up a website to keep track of it all.
https://howmuchmoneyhaschrisgraylingwasted.org/
I agree with the principle but this is buttons.
Chrisgr31 said:
Isnt part of the problem that we have UK officers providing protection in Canada and they need changing regularly, paying overtime, etc. Why cant the Canadians provide the cover and we pay them to do it?
Why can’t the millionaire private individuals who want the cover pay for it? They’re not hard-up. They can do whatever they want.
Actual LOL at some of the arguments for paying for their security.
Most of the rest of the family have to pay for their own, including Harry's cousins.
Doing a bit of soldiering and being an ex-actress aren't suddenly going to justify £20m, their risk profile just isn't that high.
It's more about ego and if they want a Stunt style dog and pony show while they run around LA being ex-famouses they can pay for it.
Meanwhile I assume Meg has rejected the cross-eyed offspring because she certainly never spends time with it.
Most of the rest of the family have to pay for their own, including Harry's cousins.
Doing a bit of soldiering and being an ex-actress aren't suddenly going to justify £20m, their risk profile just isn't that high.
It's more about ego and if they want a Stunt style dog and pony show while they run around LA being ex-famouses they can pay for it.
Meanwhile I assume Meg has rejected the cross-eyed offspring because she certainly never spends time with it.
Ayahuasca said:
If Harry chooses to live outside the royal family, he needs to accept all the consequences, including losing taxpayer funded protection.
But, he needs protection because high profile and military service. Tough, should have thought of that before.
Isn't that simple? Pass a new law saying anyone who isn't a working royal will be granted security on a means tested basis. So if they make above a certain amount, or are above a threshold of assets, then legally liable.But, he needs protection because high profile and military service. Tough, should have thought of that before.
Can extradite them from Canada if don't pay up
Halb said:
John Locke said:
Crowdfunding the royals entirely seems an excellent idea, ending all arguments about their popularity and usefulness.
A lot of people want subscription BBC, how about subscription royals? Like patreon, pay enough and one will pop round for a brew and a chat.eldar said:
98elise said:
They can have my quid if I can bin my licence fee. I shouldn't have to contribute to Gary Linkers salary if I don't want to.
Amazingly, you don’t have to contribute to GL, entirely voluntary. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff