Should we abolish the Royal family?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

The only reason steroids are banned in Europe is because you guys eat horses therefore the horse racing industry there operates like the food industry in terms of what you can put on animals. Savages.

---

Three words.

Bovine Growth Hormone ;)

lol that's really an argument I've heard before ??? Seriously, I'm sure it's bullshit but I have heard it. I'm going to research that now.

The only drugs I've heard about is 'milkshake', I'm not sure if that's a specific drug or if it's just how the trainers refer to the method they give them or whatever. But I always hear the term 'milkshake' and one time on TVG (I used to watch it alllll the time with my grandpa) there was a guy talking and he said that the reason you guys don't have juiced horses is because you guys eat your horses. Seriously ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

The only reason steroids are banned in Europe is because you guys eat horses therefore the horse racing industry there operates like the food industry in terms of what you can put on animals. Savages.

---

That's the French.

Milkshaking is when they feed a concoction of drugs into a horses stomach on raceday to help with it's stamina.

Obviously it's illegal. Obviously the problem is rife in America. Cheaters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

lol that's really an argument I've heard before ??? Seriously, I'm sure it's bullshit but I have heard it. I'm going to research that now.

---

In America, BGH is used in Cows for the production of Milk. Problem is, it causes infections that are quite serious and actually contaminate the milk, so much so that there are traces of pus (yes pus as in, zits!) in YOUR milk. Lovely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GpqwZDbMHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBHNKhlw9M

Going off topic for sec... :rolleyes:

I hate being associated with Europeans :mad:

Every time I see Prince Charles I think he's just like Jar Jar Binks! Cos he's really tall and he's got big ears!

Oh, and everyone thinks he's a cunt.

Hooray, one of my favourite old threads has re-emerged. I am still convinced that they need to be abolished. They are a virus that needs to be eliminated. In this time of austerity it would be ideal to cut the Royal family completely, but of course those Tory tosspots would have none of that. You can't go cutting things for the so called elite can you now. Only for the cattle that is the general public. We need our own revolution and the Queen should be the first one to go. She's a nice enough sort, but she represents everything that is wrong about Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Hooray, one of my favourite old threads has re-emerged. I am still convinced that they need to be abolished. They are a virus that needs to be eliminated. In this time of austerity it would be ideal to cut the Royal family completely, but of course those Tory tosspots would have none of that. You can't go cutting things for the so called elite can you now. Only for the cattle that is the general public. We need our own revolution and the Queen should be the first one to go. She's a nice enough sort, but she represents everything that is wrong about Britain.

---

Given that the Royal family actually give more financially to the taxpayer, through the annual rent profits from the crown estates, than they receive through the annual allowance given to the queen, please can you explain how abolishing the monarchy would save money?

The crown estate consists of property owned by the crown for 1000 years and exceeds a value of £6.6 billion pounds.

All annual profits from the rent of these properties goes straight to the taxpayer rather than the crown.

When you abolish the crown how do you propose to pay the costs for the government rents for these properties, as they will owe hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds to the Royal Family.

Also, who would take over as head of state for Britain, and how would you get them to fufil their role for a substantial saving over the current Royal arrangement?

dont be daft

people complain about the money they take from taxes but they bring multiple times that back into the country

they give england an identity, which attracts millions of tourists every year, it creates jobs for many many people both directly and indirectly

England would lose out massively financially and culturally if the royal family was abolished

crap idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

dont be daft

people complain about the money they take from taxes but they bring multiple times that back into the country

they give england an identity, which attracts millions of tourists every year, it creates jobs for many many people both directly and indirectly

England would lose out massively financially and culturally if the royal family was abolished

crap idea

---

What you have to understand is that Miles holds ideals that do not need to be held up to financial or practical scrutiny.

But if we didn't have the monarchy it's a fair bet that whoever became our head of state would have to be paid many times more to do the job.

Let's look at public offices as an example.

Our prime minister, like our queen is paid a modest salary considering the importance of his position, £142,500 per year. Cabinet ministers get £134,565

These salaries reflect the fact that the job they do is paid for by the tax payer, and should not be excessive.

Now let's look at what happens in the public services.

Currently there are a staggering 1700 council workers who receive a wage of greater than £100,000 per year. One executive in Cornwall earns over £410,000 or over 3 times the amount of the prime minister.

Let's look at Europe. The foreign secretary William Hague earns £134,565 per year for his role. The EU secretary Baroness Ashton earns a staggering £230,702 for doing what is essentially a non job.

Even more outrageous she has over 100!!! staff members working for her who earn more than William Hague and the Prime Minister!

How can this excess possibly be justified?

If we abolished the Royal Family, the position of Head of State still needs to be filled. We still need diplomats and dignitaries but now they would be employed with public funds and paid in accordance to the scales above. Furthmore they would no longer be politically neutral but would represent a political party, have their own stance on Europe and other agendas etc.

It would be an infinitely worse system, a tremendously bad idea, but this does not matter to Miles because he has his ideals and they are not subjected to such criticism. They are altogethy too lofty and virtuous for such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

What you have to understand is that Miles holds ideals that do not need to be held up to financial or practical scrutiny.

But if we didn't have the monarchy it's a fair bet that whoever became our head of state would have to be paid many times more to do the job.

Let's look at public offices as an example.

Our prime minister, like our queen is paid a modest salary considering the importance of his position, £142,500 per year. Cabinet ministers get £134,565

These salaries reflect the fact that the job they do is paid for by the tax payer, and should not be excessive.

Now let's look at what happens in the public services.

Currently there are a staggering 1700 council workers who receive a wage of greater than £100,000 per year. One executive in Cornwall earns over £410,000 or over 3 times the amount of the prime minister.

Let's look at Europe. The foreign secretary William Hague earns £134,565 per year for his role. The EU secretary Baroness Ashton earns a staggering £230,702 for doing what is essentially a non job.

Even more outrageous she has over 100!!! staff members working for her who earn more than William Hague and the Prime Minister!

How can this excess possibly be justified?

If we abolished the Royal Family, the position of Head of State still needs to be filled. We still need diplomats and dignitaries but now they would be employed with public funds and paid in accordance to the scales above. Furthmore they would no longer be politically neutral but would represent a political party, have their own stance on Europe and other agendas etc.

It would be an infinitely worse system, a tremendously bad idea, but this does not matter to Miles because he has his ideals and they are not subjected to such criticism. They are altogethy too lofty and virtuous for such things.

---

it would also cost a hell of a lot of money to abolish and replace in the first place

so in summary, it would cost lots to do, and cost more to be different, and be less financially profitable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

What you have to understand is that Miles holds ideals that do not need to be held up to financial or practical scrutiny.

But if we didn't have the monarchy it's a fair bet that whoever became our head of state would have to be paid many times more to do the job.

Let's look at public offices as an example.

Our prime minister, like our queen is paid a modest salary considering the importance of his position, £142,500 per year. Cabinet ministers get £134,565

These salaries reflect the fact that the job they do is paid for by the tax payer, and should not be excessive.

Now let's look at what happens in the public services.

Currently there are a staggering 1700 council workers who receive a wage of greater than £100,000 per year. One executive in Cornwall earns over £410,000 or over 3 times the amount of the prime minister.

Let's look at Europe. The foreign secretary William Hague earns £134,565 per year for his role. The EU secretary Baroness Ashton earns a staggering £230,702 for doing what is essentially a non job.

Even more outrageous she has over 100!!! staff members working for her who earn more than William Hague and the Prime Minister!

How can this excess possibly be justified?

If we abolished the Royal Family, the position of Head of State still needs to be filled. We still need diplomats and dignitaries but now they would be employed with public funds and paid in accordance to the scales above. Furthmore they would no longer be politically neutral but would represent a political party, have their own stance on Europe and other agendas etc.

It would be an infinitely worse system, a tremendously bad idea, but this does not matter to Miles because he has his ideals and they are not subjected to such criticism. They are altogethy too lofty and virtuous for such things.

---

it would also cost a hell of a lot of money to abolish and replace in the first place

so in summary, it would cost lots to do, and cost more to be different, and be less financially profitable

---

Yes the initial upheaval would be in the billions of pounds as the government would need to buy property from the crown, pay vast sums of rent and/or move into alternative buildings.

The first problem would be where to actually run parliament seeing as the Crown owns Westminster. So that would need to be bought from the Royals or else the whole government would have to move somewhere else.

Of course any upheaval of this magnitude would have to be subject to a referendum which would cost hundreds of millions of pounds also, with the result far from guaranteed. The people would most likely oppose so to go against them would lead to the court of human rights and british courts becoming involved leading to further action.

It's possible the most loyal of the Commonwealth nations would also object mightily wondering how their relations with Britain might be affected.

i dont know which idea is worse, this one or the one to create a super heavyweight division as suggested in the other thread

what do you think?

Privatise the Royal fucking family then. Let them inflate their price so that only daft Yanks with no history pay to look at them. The Prime Minister should be head of state, not some outdated Queen. Why have both when you can pay for one? I don't care about tourism, I care about democracy and a monarchy is anti-democratic.