Harry and Meghan
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:SpeckledJim said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Mort7 said:
Seight_Returns said:
Imagine the scenario where we left them unprotected and they ended up on Al Jazeera Prime Time wearing orange pyjamas.
The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.
We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.
Harry and Meghan have it in their power to prevent this. Become full-time Royals carrying out a full range of duties. If they choose not to do that then they should pay for their own security. If they choose to to do that either then should anything happen to them they will only have themselves to blame.The Government of the day would have no choice but to put numerous service men and women in harms way to try to rescue them regardless of the risk or chances of success.
We have no choice but to provide them with protection whether we like it or not.
And it isn’t ‘two’.
It's a pretty weak argument.
This boils down to an 'either / or' scenario.
Either:-
They are active members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of duties which are of benefit to the UK. Their security is paid for by the taxpayer.
Or:-
They are not members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of activities which benefit their own bank balance. They pay for their own security.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:SpeckledJim said:
They could also get told “ you’re a multimillionaire even though you’ve done nothing to deserve being a multimillionaire”.
Not spending £20m on security does not = ‘M&H at home with ISIS’ videos. Let’s not forget they are hugely rich, and their gran is a billionaire.
Yet I could definitely save three lives a year for £20m. Maybe 30 lives. Maybe 300. Maybe 3000.
We’re supposed to be a democracy.
We are a democracy so I don't quite follow you on that one.Not spending £20m on security does not = ‘M&H at home with ISIS’ videos. Let’s not forget they are hugely rich, and their gran is a billionaire.
Yet I could definitely save three lives a year for £20m. Maybe 30 lives. Maybe 300. Maybe 3000.
We’re supposed to be a democracy.
I'm not even a royalist so I take the point entirely that the queen is rich.
My concern is that we seem to be plumbing the depths a bit over how petty and spiteful we can be here to two people who've done nothing to deserve it by any sensible standard.
So how is £20m a year justifiable?
Mort7 said:
And yours, frankly, is fatuous.
This boils down to an 'either / or' scenario.
Either:-
They are active members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of duties which are of benefit to the UK. Their security is paid for by the taxpayer.
Or:-
They are not members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of activities which benefit their own bank balance. They pay for their own security.
Let's they go and live quietly somewhere and never attempt to make another penny again from their name or former status.This boils down to an 'either / or' scenario.
Either:-
They are active members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of duties which are of benefit to the UK. Their security is paid for by the taxpayer.
Or:-
They are not members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of activities which benefit their own bank balance. They pay for their own security.
Does that reduce the threat they face and who do you think is best qualified to asses what that threat might be what level of protection is needed if any?
a) The security services
b) People like you
Probably option a isn't it.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Mort7 said:
And yours, frankly, is fatuous.
This boils down to an 'either / or' scenario.
Either:-
They are active members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of duties which are of benefit to the UK. Their security is paid for by the taxpayer.
Or:-
They are not members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of activities which benefit their own bank balance. They pay for their own security.
Let's they go and live quietly somewhere and never attempt to make another penny again from their name or former status.This boils down to an 'either / or' scenario.
Either:-
They are active members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of duties which are of benefit to the UK. Their security is paid for by the taxpayer.
Or:-
They are not members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of activities which benefit their own bank balance. They pay for their own security.
Does that reduce the threat they face and who do you think is best qualified to asses what that threat might be what level of protection is needed if any?
a) The security services
b) People like you
Probably option a isn't it.
Family money can do this within a rounding error.
SpeckledJim said:
In a few years his dad is KING.
Family money can do this within a rounding error.
Family money could have done that before they decided they wanted to step back.Family money can do this within a rounding error.
It didn't seem to be such an issue then.
Hardly a peep from what I recall.
I get that some people just don't like or want to be paying for a royal family at all, but this seems much less about that principle and much more about "punishment" or whatever else drives this weird thing people seem to have against those two.
They don't even have to find their own money, Megsie makes out that she has all these rich and powerful friends including Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Ellen, the Clooneys, and various Russian oligarchs. Just get one of them or some other billionaire that feels some loving duty to protect her and Harry to pay for it, rich benefactor stylee or even some sort of tax dodge.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:SpeckledJim said:
In a few years his dad is KING.
Family money can do this within a rounding error.
Family money could have done that before they decided they wanted to step back.Family money can do this within a rounding error.
It didn't seem to be such an issue then.
Hardly a peep from what I recall.
I get that some people just don't like or want to be paying for a royal family at all, but this seems much less about that principle and much more about "punishment" or whatever else drives this weird thing people seem to have against those two.
Commercial income from them being them: theirs
Costs of them being them: ours.
Crossflow Kid said:
Can someone remind me what happened to his mum after she gave up Royal Protection and went for private security instead?
It needs to be remembered that she 'insisted' on no longer having RP, as despite being reminded that she would always be the mother of the future King, and she really should not do without a RP detail, she listened to 'others' that convinced her she would be OK.And that worked out well.....
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Mort7 said:
And yours, frankly, is fatuous.
This boils down to an 'either / or' scenario.
Either:-
They are active members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of duties which are of benefit to the UK. Their security is paid for by the taxpayer.
Or:-
They are not members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of activities which benefit their own bank balance. They pay for their own security.
Let's they go and live quietly somewhere and never attempt to make another penny again from their name or former status.This boils down to an 'either / or' scenario.
Either:-
They are active members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of duties which are of benefit to the UK. Their security is paid for by the taxpayer.
Or:-
They are not members of the Royal family. They carry out a range of activities which benefit their own bank balance. They pay for their own security.
Does that reduce the threat they face and who do you think is best qualified to asses what that threat might be what level of protection is needed if any?
a) The security services
b) People like you
Probably option a isn't it.
To put this into context, Harry is 35. His family tend to be quite long lived, which is hardly surprising considering the privilege and having medical experts on 24/7 standby. If Harry lives to 85, then even without taking inflation into account that that will cost the UK taxpayer a cool £1 billion. Plus, of course, similar expense for his children, etc, etc.
And all because Harry and Meghan want to do their own thing. Good value for the UK taxpayer?
Edited by Mort7 on Friday 28th February 21:06
aeropilot said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Can someone remind me what happened to his mum after she gave up Royal Protection and went for private security instead?
It needs to be remembered that she 'insisted' on no longer having RP, as despite being reminded that she would always be the mother of the future King, and she really should not do without a RP detail, she listened to 'others' that convinced her she would be OK.And that worked out well.....
None of those were necessary.
Just go to a villa somewhere amazing with Dodi and keep a low profile. Job jobbed.
smack said:
Estimated £20m for security - 55k per day? How!?!?!?
It's not helping that they can't make thnigs easier by being a single family unit, so rather than one team, you have two, possibly three if the baby is somewhere separate to Meagain and Harry is on a different continent.It's quite believable how the cost would ramp up.
SpeckledJim said:
Plastered chauffeur + no seatbelt + high speed to ‘escape’ paparazzi.
None of those were necessary.
Just go to a villa somewhere amazing with Dodi and keep a low profile. Job jobbed.
Finally, the voice of experience and reason. Having himself been hounded by the press relentlessly for years, what SpeckledJim knows is that you have to live the life of a hermit and recluse. When confronted by the press you must stand still like a deer in the headlights.None of those were necessary.
Just go to a villa somewhere amazing with Dodi and keep a low profile. Job jobbed.
Otherwise, you face the only fate that someone could expect and deserve: Death.
Add to that, what we know to be fact beyond any doubt is that the press has never found or photographed someone in a "villa somewhere amazing" ever in all of history.
Edited by _dobbo_ on Friday 28th February 22:35
_dobbo_ said:
SpeckledJim said:
Plastered chauffeur + no seatbelt + high speed to ‘escape’ paparazzi.
None of those were necessary.
Just go to a villa somewhere amazing with Dodi and keep a low profile. Job jobbed.
Finally, the voice of experience and reason. Having himself been hounded by the press relentlessly for years, what SpeckledJim knows is that you have to live the life of a hermit and recluse. When confronted by the press you must stand still like a deer in the headlights.None of those were necessary.
Just go to a villa somewhere amazing with Dodi and keep a low profile. Job jobbed.
Otherwise, you face the only fate that someone could expect and deserve: Death.
Add to that, what we know to be fact beyond any doubt is that the press has never found or photographed someone in a "villa somewhere amazing" ever in all of history.
Edited by _dobbo_ on Friday 28th February 22:35
fair play!Can we agree the truth may lie somewhere between those positions?
(If you so desperately want to avoid the Paparazzi, luxury hotels in central Paris aren’t a great choice though)
Mort7 said:
You're missing the point (again). This isn't about whether or not they will require security, it's about who should pay for it. I consider that it should be them. You clearly disagree.
To put this into context, Harry is 35. His family tend to be quite long lived, which is hardly surprising considering the privilege and having medical experts on 24/7 standby. If Harry lives to 85, then even without taking inflation into account that that will cost the UK taxpayer a cool £1 billion. Plus, of course, similar expense for his children, etc, etc.
And all because Harry and Meghan want to do their own thing. Good value for the UK taxpayer?
They will be willing to pay vast amounts of money because she is their "woke" princess. Then probably show up on another thread complaining about heartless Tory cuts. To put this into context, Harry is 35. His family tend to be quite long lived, which is hardly surprising considering the privilege and having medical experts on 24/7 standby. If Harry lives to 85, then even without taking inflation into account that that will cost the UK taxpayer a cool £1 billion. Plus, of course, similar expense for his children, etc, etc.
And all because Harry and Meghan want to do their own thing. Good value for the UK taxpayer?
Mort7 said:
You're missing the point (again). This isn't about whether or not they will require security, it's about who should pay for it. I consider that it should be them. You clearly disagree.
To put this into context, Harry is 35. His family tend to be quite long lived, which is hardly surprising considering the privilege and having medical experts on 24/7 standby. If Harry lives to 85, then even without taking inflation into account that that will cost the UK taxpayer a cool £1 billion. Plus, of course, similar expense for his children, etc, etc.
And all because Harry and Meghan want to do their own thing. Good value for the UK taxpayer?
A quid a year covers the royals I believe.To put this into context, Harry is 35. His family tend to be quite long lived, which is hardly surprising considering the privilege and having medical experts on 24/7 standby. If Harry lives to 85, then even without taking inflation into account that that will cost the UK taxpayer a cool £1 billion. Plus, of course, similar expense for his children, etc, etc.
And all because Harry and Meghan want to do their own thing. Good value for the UK taxpayer?
Edited by Mort7 on Friday 28th February 21:06
I've said before I'm not a royalist but it's difficult to get too bothered about it.
When your attitude is "They can have protection so long as we own them but after that they're on their own" it really doesn't come across as if your primary concern is value for the UK taxpayer.
I doubt we'll agree and people can form a view whether I'm waving a flag singing God Save the Queen or simply suggesting that Harry didn't choose to be born into a family that makes him a target so let's leave it to the security services to assess the risk and any protection required.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff