Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding' (or

> the royal anything) should surely be left to do so

> - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.


We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we? Security costs to public purse estimated at approximately ?30M.

kibris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why don't we all just watch the FA CUP FINAL more

> fun in that than from these people that just take

> our money


William is making a mad dash to be at the FA Cup final according to the Express

Potential for a missed speech I'm sure


https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/949435/royal-wedding-latest-prince-william-attend-FA-Cup-Final


I love that for us plebs - the last paragraph states pubs will be open longer.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.


Ditto the 2012 Olympics. Some people's bread and circuses are royalty, some are elite sports. I couldn't be a*sed with either but I'm not decrying others for their choices.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.


Exactly. It seems that it?s ok for the struggling person on the street to be paying towards the wedding of one of the many hangers, yet we can?t afford to give Doctors, Nurses and others pay rises. I think it?s shocking.


This guy isn?t even first in line to the throne. They perform nothing but ceremonial BS. We have it shoved down our throats by the media, and the best thing we are offered in response is the so called privilege to watch this circus without a tv licence. Pathetic.


Louisa.

Maybe the royal wedding could be sponsored or product placement used.


I noted impressively that when singing 'we're in the money' the CEO of Sainsbury's picked up a cup of Nero's coffee (Isn't Starbucks the Sainsburys partner) :)


Edit: The UK sites have cut out the 'product placement' - but the Irish ones haven't LOL

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".



eat your peas, people in Africa would love to have a plate of peas like yours. be thankful for your peas.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".



It?s not just about them being ?freeloaders? though is it? It?s about what they represent. Unelected privilege. Unlike our elected representatives, these people are not held accountable for anything.


Louisa.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?


They?re singled out for the reasons I explained. They are in a position of privilege as a birth right rather than a democratic right. You can?t solve inequality when people like them are given access to state funds to pay for security towards their weddding. You think it?s fair that people are going to food banks and struggling to pay the bills, whilst these wealthy aristocrats are flaunting their state funded wedding on state funded television? It?s just absurd in the 21st century.


Louisa.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?


Nope. Be a start though. How can you ever hope to have true equality in a country where the head of state is selected through an accident of birth, paid a fortune and treated by the majority of politicians and media as akin to a deity? It heavily reinforces the concept that each has their allotted place.

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RH, you can never have true equality in society as

> it just does not work like that. You always have

> to have those that rule and teach and, likewise,

> you have to have those that learn, submit and

> obey. Simple, really.


What a depressing worldview. Might as well chuck it all in and go back to feudalism then, eh?


You will always, it is true, have those who lead and those who follow. That doesn't have to imply the totalitarian "ruling" and "obeying" and "submitting", and most importantly who leads and who follows can be predicated on ability, desire and work ethic rather than accidents of birth and whose many times great grandad was best at nicking land and goods off others a thousand years ago.

RH, you're quite right regarding "ability, desire, work ethic" etc, but that is surely to do with equality of opportunity, which I wholeheartedly endorse, rather than actual bona fide equality. Most have to obey and there are those that decide/ tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it necessarily follows some are ruling and others are submitting. If society did not work in this way, then surely there would be anarchy and no society? (Setting aside what Thatcher said!!).

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Most have to obey and there are those that decide/

> tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it

> necessarily follows some are ruling and others are

> submitting.


Somewhat discounting the role of an elected legislature there, aren't you?

And the fact that everyone, including the 'lawmakers', is subject to the same laws once they're in force. Ditto rulers - that was the point of Magna Carta, which is still what many Brits recognise as the basis of this country's constitution.

micromacromonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually Harry did serve on the front line for his

> country, so that certainly makes him the most

> deserving member of his parasitic family.


So apparently did Patrick, the homeless guy in the wheelchair who was sheltering in the doorway of the Grove Tavern before they boarded it up to force him out.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...