Jamaica to become a Republic.

[Halb]

johnfm said:

Fittster said:

Jinx said:

Fittster said:

"In his Budget statement today the Chancellor announced that payment to the Civil List for calendar year 2011 will be unchanged at £7.9m. Royal Household spending on support of The Queen in Her duties as Monarch in 2011 will fall from £15.1m to £14.9m"

And her useless son gets to own Cornwall.

So £22.8 million a year divided by 69 million people approx 33p a year from each of us. I'd gladly pay that for Prince Philip alone.

Maybe that's the way forward. You want Prince Philip you can sponsor him. The royal's can walk about with a sponsors name on their chest like a footballer players do.

Should the state take your property from you and sell it?

Is Fitters property held in the name of the country and used for the governance of the nation and not for his personal benefit?

[Fittster]

Halb said:

Fittster said:

So you are trying to deflect the cost of the royal parasites by looking at the costs of other parasites.

I'm perfectly happy to see both groups being decimated.

What would you replace it with, something more Swiss?

A move to a more direct democratic system would be something I favour. Rulers, however they gained their position are a hopeless, self-interested bunch.

[Zaxxon]

Fittster said:

Maybe that's the way forward. You want Prince Philip you can sponsor him. The royal's can walk about with a sponsors name on their chest like a footballer players do.

Or perhaps we could dump you in France? That would be a free service.

[Fittster]

98elise said:

Fittster said:

thinfourth2 said:

I'd happily bet that on average each royal costs the UK less then the average MP

"In his Budget statement today the Chancellor announced that payment to the Civil List for calendar year 2011 will be unchanged at £7.9m. Royal Household spending on support of The Queen in Her duties as Monarch in 2011 will fall from £15.1m to £14.9m"

And her useless son gets to own Cornwall.

So the civil list costs us half of what we pay (or paid) for jonathan ross, who was also paid for by tax payers. The civil list seem like a bargain.

And where exactly did I state I support the TV license?

You lot seem to love having costs of supporting parasites inflicted on you.

[Zaxxon]

Fittster said:

And where exactly did I state I support the TV license?

You lot seem to love having costs of supporting parasites inflicted on you.

'You lot'? What the fk do you mean 'You lot'?

[Fittster]

Zaxxon said:

Fittster said:

And where exactly did I state I support the TV license?

You lot seem to love having costs of supporting parasites inflicted on you.

'You lot'? What the fk do you mean 'You lot'?

The group of you who support paying for inbred monarchs, incompetent political representatives and possibly Jonathan Ross.

That would be the 'lot' you belong to.

[Jinx]

Fittster said:

The group of you who support paying for inbred monarchs, incompetent political representatives and possibly Jonathan Ross.

That would be the 'lot' you belong to.

Nope I support paying for top notch comedy and entertainment (so not Jonathan Ross) - Prince Philip is well worth my 33p a year

[Zaxxon]

Fittster said:

The group of you who support paying for inbred monarchs, incompetent political representatives and possibly Jonathan Ross.

That would be the 'lot' you belong to.

Are you the forums duty Troll for today?

I can't be bothered arguing with someone of your 'special' intellect. Just search the hundereds of other threads regarding royalty and you can choose any of the many posts that show 'your type' (seeing as you love grouping people) to be jealous, dimwitted and ignorant who understand the cost of everything yet the value of nothing. Check out the many examples of where the Royalty bring in far more money than they cost. And also have a quiet moment to yourself and ponder what this country would be like living under President Blair or President Cameron. I'll take a Royal family that affects my life not a jot, but many other countries would love to have.

Edited by Zaxxon on Friday 6th January 14:05

[DJRC]

Fittster said:

Halb said:

Fittster said:

So you are trying to deflect the cost of the royal parasites by looking at the costs of other parasites.

I'm perfectly happy to see both groups being decimated.

What would you replace it with, something more Swiss?

A move to a more direct democratic system would be something I favour. Rulers, however they gained their position are a hopeless, self-interested bunch.

There are drawbacks to a direct democratic system. On the whole though the Swiss quite like it. But then they also love the British Royal Family, there is a joke out here that questions if we are sure they are German and not Swiss

[johnfm]

Halb said:

johnfm said:

Fittster said:

Jinx said:

Fittster said:

"In his Budget statement today the Chancellor announced that payment to the Civil List for calendar year 2011 will be unchanged at £7.9m. Royal Household spending on support of The Queen in Her duties as Monarch in 2011 will fall from £15.1m to £14.9m"

And her useless son gets to own Cornwall.

So £22.8 million a year divided by 69 million people approx 33p a year from each of us. I'd gladly pay that for Prince Philip alone.

Maybe that's the way forward. You want Prince Philip you can sponsor him. The royal's can walk about with a sponsors name on their chest like a footballer players do.

Should the state take your property from you and sell it?

Is Fitters property held in the name of the country and used for the governance of the nation and not for his personal benefit?

I don't know. You should ask him. Did he do a deal whereby he gave up revenues from his property in return for an annual payment?

He is suggesting taking their property. I think mine is a valid question.

[thinfourth2]

Fittster said:

And where exactly did I state I support the TV license?

You lot seem to love having costs of supporting parasites inflicted on you.

not really but show me a country which doesn't have parasites

[Fittster]

thinfourth2 said:

Fittster said:

And where exactly did I state I support the TV license?

You lot seem to love having costs of supporting parasites inflicted on you.

not really but show me a country which doesn't have parasites

Hardly means it's not something to strive for.

Show me a country without criminals, peadophiles, religous zealots, etc. You can't but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and remove them does it.

[Fittster]

johnfm said:

I don't know. You should ask him. Did he do a deal whereby he gave up revenues from his property in return for an annual payment?

He is suggesting taking their property. I think mine is a valid question.

How did they get this property? Because god said it was rightfully there's?

[Fittster]

Zaxxon said:

I can't be bothered arguing

You should try, you need the practice.

Zaxxon said:

Check out the many examples of where the Royalty bring in far more money than they cost.

Mickey Mouse is a big tourist pull for the US, they didn't make him head of state did they.

[Murph7355]

Fittster said:

I believe Ireland is a republic but that doesn't seem to have stopped the flow of Irish immigrants.

They have less far to swim...

[Du1point8]

thinfourth2 said:

Fittster said:

And where exactly did I state I support the TV license?

You lot seem to love having costs of supporting parasites inflicted on you.

not really but show me a country which doesn't have parasites

If you can extend that to a state... Singapore does a good job of not having many/any parasites... put nothing in, get nothing out and get told to eff off...

[Caulkhead]

Fittster said:

Zaxxon said:

Fittster said:

And where exactly did I state I support the TV license?

You lot seem to love having costs of supporting parasites inflicted on you.

'You lot'? What the fk do you mean 'You lot'?

The group of you who support paying for inbred monarchs, incompetent political representatives and possibly Jonathan Ross.

That would be the 'lot' you belong to.

If you were able, for one post in your lifetime, to separate your political dogma from your pseudo economic arguments, you would realise that 'us lot' are as equally aware of the shortcomings of the status quo as we are of the vast cost increases of testing out one of your many and varied 'improvements' to the governance of this country.

On balance, we prefer to stick to the devil we know, rather than the half-arsed, forum rantings we don't.

[Halb]

johnfm said:

I don't know. You should ask him. Did he do a deal whereby he gave up revenues from his property in return for an annual payment?

He is suggesting taking their property. I think mine is a valid question.

If he did the deal which was similar to the royals then he did not give up 'his' property. The CE are 'held' by the HoS in the name of the country for the payment of government, the then HoS forgave his rights to them for a regular set stipend (it was a good deal for him at the time) they are/were not personal property. So he is not suggesting they take 'their' property, that's why it is not valid.
If Fittster held a job, and with that job went property and an amount of money to do that job, then that property would not be 'his'. He would manage the property in the name of the company. It is quite different from any personal property Fittster would own in the name of Fittster.

Edited by Halb on Friday 6th January 14:26

[Jinx]

Fittster said:

How did they get this property? Because god said it was rightfully there's?

Right of Conquest was the usual method before lawyers. Now we have lawyers it is considered unseemly........

[Halb]

Jinx said:

Fittster said:

How did they get this property? Because god said it was rightfully there's?

Right of Conquest was the usual method before lawyers. Now we have lawyers it is considered unseemly........

Those bloody lawyers, always sticking their sticky beaks in.