The Royal Parasites get an extra £1.5M
Discussion
elster said:
You want to remove the most recognised person in the world from the country?
You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Are tourists are more importand than having a democratic system of government? You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
colonel c said:
elster said:
You want to remove the most recognised person in the world from the country?
You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Are tourists are more importand than having a democratic system of government? You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Please answer in terms of the greater good, rather than your own inadequate jealousy. If you break the taboo of talking about politics, at least be prepared to justify your stance.
Off you go.
nonegreen said:
dirty boy said:
nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep these
s?
Plainly you're an idiot.Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep these
s?However, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you clearly don't have the facts, read a little about the monarchy, and you understand how important they are.
The monarchy is part of our national identity, also in much the same way us Britons tear off to China to see a f
king wall taking masses of our money away with us, the Chinese, Japanese, Americans etc all wander over here to see Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham etc etc.Anyway, back to the financials.
The Crown is worth a considerable sum (billions), it's changed over the years in that they're unique in that the Royals are funded by the tax payer in exchange for all of the Crown's revenues.
In 2007/08 the Crown revenue from all sources amounting to £211m was transferred to the treasury.
So that was a waste wasn't it?
I expect an apology when I log on in the morning.
Not to me.
To HRH.
1. The royal estates would produce the revenues without all the parasites taking their bit.
2 The notion that the parasites contribute is total b
ks. If they were sent off to just one of the royal residences to stay there, the rest could beopened up as hotels and filled with American tourists. Now that would truly make a contribution3. The upkeep of Royal estates is outrageously expensive, just clearing up after the last dead one cost a fortune.
4. The Royal expenses will sooner or later be fully exposed and it will be truly shocking/
As for an apology. Not a chance in hell. I am a republican and I reckon this coun try will be rid of the Royal Burden within my lifetime.
I presume you have never actually lived in the real world? You have the views and deluded attitude of a 2nd year philosiphy student... I can't be far off.
Mr Wiggly said:
colonel c said:
elster said:
You want to remove the most recognised person in the world from the country?
You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Are tourists are more importand than having a democratic system of government? You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Please answer in terms of the greater good, rather than your own inadequate jealousy. If you break the taboo of talking about politics, at least be prepared to justify your stance.
Off you go.
One: would you like {insert name of current unpopular PM}
Two: The Royal family bring in lots of tourists.
We seldom get into any serious debate about the advantages or disadvantages of becoming a republic.
The Queen is very popular and has served the country for well over half a century now. What guarantee the Prince of Wales will be so loved by the public when he is crowned King. Let's be honest the Royal Family are regarded as little more than soap opera by many nowadays.
An elected head of state would at least have some kind of mandate lead the nation.
An elected head of stat would have the power and be expected to speak out on matters of concern to the people. President Sarkozy's comments regarding the burka is a fine example. The Queen could never be alowed to make such a speech.
So apart from Gordon Brown and tourists what advantage to the nation is there in keeping our ceremonial head of state?
Oh! and who or what is it that you think I'm jealous of?
colonel c said:
Mr Wiggly said:
colonel c said:
elster said:
You want to remove the most recognised person in the world from the country?
You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Are tourists are more importand than having a democratic system of government? You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Please answer in terms of the greater good, rather than your own inadequate jealousy. If you break the taboo of talking about politics, at least be prepared to justify your stance.
Off you go.
One: would you like {insert name of current unpopular PM}
Two: The Royal family bring in lots of tourists.
We seldom get into any serious debate about the advantages or disadvantages of becoming a republic.
The Queen is very popular and has served the country for well over half a century now. What guarantee the Prince of Wales will be so loved by the public when he is crowned King. Let's be honest the Royal Family are regarded as little more than soap opera by many nowadays.
An elected head of state would at least have some kind of mandate lead the nation.
An elected head of stat would have the power and be expected to speak out on matters of concern to the people. President Sarkozy's comments regarding the burka is a fine example. The Queen could never be alowed to make such a speech.
So apart from Gordon Brown and tourists what advantage to the nation is there in keeping our ceremonial head of state?
Oh! and who or what is it that you think I'm jealous of?
colonel c said:
We seldom get into any serious debate about the advantages or disadvantages of becoming a republic.
Are any republics actually better off overall as a result of being one?Just saying that we can elect one that we are happy with misses the point as huge numbers of people are unhappy with elected politicians.
colonel c said:
The Queen is very popular and has served the country for well over half a century now. What guarantee the Prince of Wales will be so loved by the public when he is crowned King. Let's be honest the Royal Family are regarded as little more than soap opera by many nowadays.
Many presidents are also regarded as soap operas. Just look at the media circus surrounding their private lives.colonel c said:
An elected head of state would at least have some kind of mandate lead the nation.
An elected head of stat would have the power and be expected to speak out on matters of concern to the people. President Sarkozy's comments regarding the burka is a fine example. The Queen could never be alowed to make such a speech.
No politican in the UK, except Nick Griffin, would say what Sarkozy said. They too concerned with being labeled racist. This is nothing to do with having a monarch.An elected head of stat would have the power and be expected to speak out on matters of concern to the people. President Sarkozy's comments regarding the burka is a fine example. The Queen could never be alowed to make such a speech.
colonel c said:
So apart from Gordon Brown and tourists what advantage to the nation is there in keeping our ceremonial head of state?
Apart from being able to elect someone who we don't really want to do a job that doesn't really affect us every few years and er, losing the tourists and er, getting president Brown, how exactly are we better off? In fact that seems worse off.Edited by cymtriks on Tuesday 30th June 08:06
nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep theses?
If I was a GB taxpayer I'd be much more worried about the scandalous theft and squandering/pluundering of Britain taking place by the one eyed Scottish idiot and his bunch of thieves called the Government. They're intent on building a soviet style state in GB complete with Blockwarts, local informers, Stasi and gestapo, and the rest of GB are just criminals or potential criminals who can be stolen from or persecuted. Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep these
s?HMs family might be dissolute, certainly disfunctional, but for 69p a YEAR FFS and a damn sight cheaper than an Obama or other such idiot (bLIAR as President?? FFS!!), lets worry about the hundreds of billions that Labour have cost and will cost for the next 30-50 YEARS!!!
Ireland left the UK in 1921 and ditched any Royal connections more or less immediately.
What did they do, they installed a ceremonial President in place of the Royal Appointee (the Viceroy).
OK, the post is electable (every seven years) but the position has no power and most of the time the incumbent is only a roving ambassador -= usually not up to much either - with the exception of Mary Robinson who was a bit of a star.
The Royal Family is part of the "essence" of what Britain is. Like any institution, before it is ditched be VERY sure you know EXACTLY what the consequences for the country are going to be.
As I said in a similar thread a few weeks ago, if Royal Families are so abhorrent, why do so many other European contries have them too - and why have they even gone to the trouble of reinstating them after long gaps in some instances (e.g. Spain)?
What did they do, they installed a ceremonial President in place of the Royal Appointee (the Viceroy).
OK, the post is electable (every seven years) but the position has no power and most of the time the incumbent is only a roving ambassador -= usually not up to much either - with the exception of Mary Robinson who was a bit of a star.
The Royal Family is part of the "essence" of what Britain is. Like any institution, before it is ditched be VERY sure you know EXACTLY what the consequences for the country are going to be.
As I said in a similar thread a few weeks ago, if Royal Families are so abhorrent, why do so many other European contries have them too - and why have they even gone to the trouble of reinstating them after long gaps in some instances (e.g. Spain)?
colonel c said:
elster said:
You want to remove the most recognised person in the world from the country?
You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Are tourists are more importand than having a democratic system of government? You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?
No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.
Also the Queen is a head of state of other countries too, they don't seem to have any issues with having QEII as their Monarchy.
Would you say the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand don't have democraticaly ellected governments?
Concorde could have been defined as something of a parasite but the only people opposed to it were a minority of miserable weeners with nothing better to do than spoil the near spiritual experience which to many was a defining incon of nationhood: something worth celebrating and embracing.
The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
derestrictor said:
Concorde could have been defined as something of a parasite but the only people opposed to it were a minority of miserable weeners with nothing better to do than spoil the near spiritual experience which to many was a defining incon of nationhood: something worth celebrating and embracing.
The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
Sometimes, raw economics is not the sole criteria to measure the importance of an institution. There are things in any society, community or country which bind us together and help define what we are. I would place Concorde in that category - along with the Royal Family, the BBC and the Royal Mail - not to mention the Armed Forces.The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
So, before ANYONE asks for their dismantling or abolotion or emasculation - think VERY carefully as to what you might get in their place.
Eric Mc said:
derestrictor said:
Concorde could have been defined as something of a parasite but the only people opposed to it were a minority of miserable weeners with nothing better to do than spoil the near spiritual experience which to many was a defining incon of nationhood: something worth celebrating and embracing.
The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
Sometimes, raw economics is not the sole criteria to measure the importance of an institution. There are things in any society, community or country which bind us together and help define what we are. I would place Concorde in that category - along with the Royal Family, the BBC and the Royal Mail - not to mention the Armed Forces.The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
So, before ANYONE asks for their dismantling or abolotion or emasculation - think VERY carefully as to what you might get in their place.
Btw, did you watch the hommage to the great bird on BBC Four last night? I could weep at it's passing.
The phrase Concorde moment has now passed into the vernacular to describe any development which might be judged retrogressive. An epitaph of sorts, I guess.
nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep theses?
It seems the terminally dimwitted has spoken.Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep these
s?derestrictor said:
Eric Mc said:
derestrictor said:
Concorde could have been defined as something of a parasite but the only people opposed to it were a minority of miserable weeners with nothing better to do than spoil the near spiritual experience which to many was a defining incon of nationhood: something worth celebrating and embracing.
The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
Sometimes, raw economics is not the sole criteria to measure the importance of an institution. There are things in any society, community or country which bind us together and help define what we are. I would place Concorde in that category - along with the Royal Family, the BBC and the Royal Mail - not to mention the Armed Forces.The cold, humourless, unforgiving logic of the roundhead is not something I could stomach.
So, before ANYONE asks for their dismantling or abolotion or emasculation - think VERY carefully as to what you might get in their place.
Btw, did you watch the hommage to the great bird on BBC Four last night? I could weep at it's passing.
The phrase Concorde moment has now passed into the vernacular to describe any development which might be judged retrogressive. An epitaph of sorts, I guess.
Sad.
I thought the chap who said, "Great nations do great things. perhaps Concorde is the last great thing Britain will ever do", was probably not far off the truth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff