-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimboogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimboogie
Strongly disagree.
Labour hasn't had a clue how to deal with the immigration problems in the U.K.
The only party even talking about these problems are the BNP and that unfortunately has an affect on the people who have lost faith in Lab/ Con/ Lib Dem with regards to Immigration.
And as for your 5% minority statistic, well you can stick that up your harris mate cause i as well as anyone who lives in a urban are of a major city knows that statistic counts for shit :D
Sorry but if you vote for a party who has a manifesto full of blatantly unworkable policies fronted by a man who has a previous conviction for insighting racial hatred, aswell as denying the holocaust, then you are clearly an idiot or a racist. Taking out the racial elements (if you can), you're left with a manifesto of sound bites that are designed to manipulate the average idiot into believing the BNP are the answer to the countries problems.
I'm pretty sure i'd take government/independant party statistics over your anecdotal evidence. Unless of course you've canvassed the religious beliefs of all of the 'brown people' in your Urban area.
Im beige, not brown ;)
Anyway... The moment The BNP attain a Manifesto of
workable policies then they won't be any different to The rest of em.
Scary thought ay? :D
Well they would. They'd still be horrible racists.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.
She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.
Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....
BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m
I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?
As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!
I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.
In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?
I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.
The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.
From your article :
The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.
So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
lol fucken crazies ;D
I stand by this. Hey other Americans, look at the Brits going crazy :cwm13:
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.
She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.
Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....
BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m
I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?
As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!
I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.
In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?
I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.
The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.
From your article :
The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.
So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.
She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.
Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I happen to think some of the architecture is quite wonderful too, but if they are her homes then surely she is responsible for the upkeep. As it is, these homes are open to the public and at a cost. Surely this money would suffice for the upkeep of the properties. I don't understand why she should have any claim over taxpayers money. It was estimated that the Royal family cost the tax payer over 40 milllion pounds last year. Now look at the following article to see where this money went....
BBC NEWS | UK | Cost of Royal Family rises �1.5m
I see no way to justify it. I much prefer the idea of Graham Smith who suggested a cap on the Queens income at 200, 000 pounds a year. That's a mighty fine yearly salary for anyone! Surely, no one could have any complaints about that being better than what we currently have?
As for me possibly being a communist. Well, I wouldn't quite go that far. I am pretty left wing though in quite a bit of my thinking. Personally, I think the systems that we have in place today are becoming ever more evil and twisted too. The room for opportunity has seldom been this bad. The rich at the top are sucking it all dry and the banks are being handed over billions of pounds of hard working tax payers money just to keep the bubble afloat. The entire system is criminal. But at least we have the right to say what we want and be ignored by everyone!
I don't think keeping most of the wealth in society in the hands of a limited number of families who are free to manipulate the system through cronyism is a very good idea. It's best to funnel that wealth away from them and to stimulate the areas of society which suffer most. The 'have not's' deserve the opportunity to try and make something of themselves too. But I am digressing here away from talking specifically about the Royal family and going into a bit of a diatribe at what is taking place right now before our very eyes. But, no I'm not a communist. I'm more a humanist with strong socialist leanings.
In response to your final point, the Queen has a standard of living far beyond the reach of most ordinary people. If anybody was able to command millions of pounds for performing her duties, I'm sure they would jump at the chance too! But as it is, unless you are in the bloodline then you haven't a chance. It doesn't matter to me that she hasn't been galivanting and living it up in expensive clubs and collecting airplanes as a hobby. She does though have private cooks who cook her the finest food she desires all paid for by the humble old taxpayer. Why can't she cook her own tin of soup like I am most other people have to?
I'm not really into the salaries of top football players either, but they are paid by the people who are willing to pay money to watch games. Nobody is forcing people to buy tickets or watch football. There is a demand and the market stipulates that top players earn a lot more than the lowly minnions in the lesser leagues. I don't like that, but the taxpayers are not funding it so it doesn't matter so much. I can choose not to watch a game, but I am unable to stipulate who the head of state should be. The market does not respond to the Royal family in quite the same way.
The country is pretty much a republic anyway. Gordon Brown is the leader and what he wants generally gets passed as long as the house agrees. The Queen is head of state in name only.
From your article :
The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.
So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness.
Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!
The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.
She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.
The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.
It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.
They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.
From your article :
The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.
So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness.
Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!
The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.
She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.
The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.
It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.
They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.
I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.
I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.
The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.
I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years? The Saudis definitely wouldn't have come here if they couldn't have got the opportunity of drinkies with the royals, they'd be based in France or America. There isn't aanything they touch that doesn't disproportionately benefit the thing. If you boot them out you get a cunt like Blair doing the same things, costing far more money, and bringing to every occasion he graces all the class and glamour of an unconvicted war criminal.
From your article :
The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.
So over fifty years the monarchy costs the country two billion, the same as one elected German president cleared (and he cleared it in 1980s money, £3.5 billion adjusted for inflation) in an eight year term. Or one-twentieth of the money the Russian prez has made over the last decade. Putin's stash of cash made over the last decade since being a KGB employee on a state wage would pay for the monarchy for 1000 years. And those earnings come from interfering in government legislation to award multibillion contracts at uncompetetive terms to the bribers who them make billions by (now legally) gouging their customers in line with the crooked terms of their crooked contracts. If the Queen cost ten times more than she did she'd still be ten times cheaper for the British public than the alternative.
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness.
Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!
The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.
She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.
The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.
It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.
They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.
That's sounds great Bilbo, but it's just a whole lot of words. Why do we need a symbolic head of state? People need to get a grip!
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Is it illegal to talk about this ???
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!
The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.
She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.
The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.
It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.
They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.
I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.
I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.
The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.
I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.
Miles, console yourself with being right. :)
I think Bilbo is on more of a windup than HTH:-X
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimboogie
Is it illegal to talk about this ???
off with their heads!
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Miles you are clearly a man of no historical perspective whatsoever!
The Royal family is incredibly important, much more important than any of the individuals that comprise it. She likely does it because she is the heir to a 1000 year reign and she bears the full weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.
She is a servant to Britain, not some celeb living a carefree highlife. I imagine she sees herself the way kings and queens have always seen themselves, as the mothers and fathers of their people.
The royal family provide a sense a stability and solidity to the lives of millions. Much like the (also maligned) Christian church their continued existence gives people a feeling of security and permanence in an ever changing world.
It's comforting to know that for a 1000 years our royal family has watched over us, no longer as rulers but as symbolic heads of state, parents to the nation if you will.
They represent a continium right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. In a world as fast changing as ours that is something unique and should be regarded with national pride.
I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.
I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.
The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.
I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.
Miles, console yourself with being right. :)
I think Bilbo is on more of a windup than HTH:-X
There are too many people out there practicing the fine art of sophistry for my liking! It makes things too cloudy.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I have plenty of historical perspective and am well aware of the history concerning the Royal family. These were the very same people that originally tried to justify their draconian grip on the nation by claiming to be the earthly representatives of god. And all this time later here we have people trying to claim that they provide stability to the nation.
I find your idea that the Royal family see themselves as some kind of guardians of the British people somewhat absurd, especially considering that their wealth and cronyism has always come at the expense of the rest of the population.
The government has commited a number of treasonous acts since it became elected. Where was the Queens voice concerning the illegality of the Iraq war? Where was her voice regarding the bankrupt banks and how they have ripped off her faithful subjects? For someone that cares so much and apparently has the power refuse signing off on government proposals, she is remarkably silent about a lot of important things that are affecting British people very badly.
I think she is irrelevant and voiceless, and thus no longer serves any significant purpose.
Miles, console yourself with being right. :)
I think Bilbo is on more of a windup than HTH:-X
There are too many people out there practicing the fine art of sophistry for my liking! It makes things too cloudy.
well, I enjoy a bit of that myself but it's the piss-take in sheep's clothing you gotta watch out for. ;)
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle. ;)
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.
And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.
Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle. ;)
The Queen is an independently wealthy woman. She could have buggered off years ago and lived off the interest off her interest and had an unbelievably lavish lifestyle, even compared to the one she has now. Instead she spent every year up till she was 80 doing 200+ domestic engagements a year, foreign tours etc. If that was me I would have done one charity event meeting worthies and saying nice things to unfortunate people then said sod it and been a playboy for the rest of my life. You couldn't make me do one of those things at gunpoint if I knew I could bugger off and enjoy myself instead. So what if the bits in between the endless engagements, endless travelling are nice? They'd be much nicer and more of them for an elected prez.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.
And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.
Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes
Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.
I will not discuss the monarchy in Sunderland pubs then! ;D:p
My perspective is that the Queen is head of state in a symbolic form only. She passes through whatever the government demands no matter what her own views might be. Gordon Brown in this instance is the de facto President, it's just that we call him the Prime Minister. I don't see how taking away the Queen results in increased corruption in terms of the system we already have in the UK. When it comes to further integration into the European model, I can see your case but as it stands and looking at things as they are in the UK, I struggle to see it.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle. ;)
The Queen is an independently wealthy woman. She could have buggered off years ago and lived off the interest off her interest and had an unbelievably lavish lifestyle, even compared to the one she has now. Instead she spent every year up till she was 80 doing 200+ domestic engagements a year, foreign tours etc. If that was me I would have done one charity event meeting worthies and saying nice things to unfortunate people then said sod it and been a playboy for the rest of my life. You couldn't make me do one of those things at gunpoint if I knew I could bugger off and enjoy myself instead. So what if the bits in between the endless engagements, endless travelling are nice? They'd be much nicer and more of them for an elected prez.
...created with our money.
200 engagements - Because she has a sense of duty, which is great but that is not the issue.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hattonthehammer
exactly
I was a naive voter like many who heard a lot of people finally bringing this subject to our attention and chose to vote them on the basis of the issue that troubled me the most.
I admit i ballsed that up, having actually looked into their policys they are indeed a vile hate mob who want a racially pure nation. But the point i keep trying to explain to merkin is that while they may be neo-nazi thugs the large majority of people that vote for them arent. He wont have that, 8% of the british public are vile racist scum!
Yes i probably am a bit of a homophobe i`ll hold my hands up there, but merkin clearly has issues with "the man" and chooses to voice those on here
I've never assumed everyone who voted for them was a racist, but when I tried to address this to you at the time, you accused me of having an agenda because I didn't vote how you thought I should :rolleyes:
You talk about me throwing mud, but you dived into that mud & rolled around in it. You'll find I've very rarely called you out in a thread in the way you've been doing recently & then you're surprised that I respond.
Saying Floyd Mayweather is 'a typical African-American cocky cunt who needs a slap' is racist, regardless of you using the most politically correct language to say it. I tried to discuss this with you seriously on the other thread & either your reading skills or general ambivalence towards any serious discussion led you to ignore it. You've got the freedom to say what you like about people, I have no problem with that, but you can't then complain about me calling you out on it if I disagree with it.
You say I have problems with 'the man', well I've almost certainly worked far more closely with 'the man' than you have so that's a bit of a non-starter. I know it's easy for you to assume I have a chip on my shoulder, but I have no problem with a single other poster's comments on this site & have attacked the dickheads who accuse Missy & Miles of it, just because they hate Khan. It is just yours. Just think about some of the stuff you say & ask yourself if you would really say the same things (most rapes being committed by blacks) in a room full of black people. If you can honestly say you would, then I take it back you're not a racist.
Also if you're going to go on a windup, you might want to do it on a thread where I'm disagreeing with you ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.
And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.
Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.
I've just picked this one out, but I agree with most of Kirkland's points on here. Even if I don't love the monarchy, they do much more good for our country than bad. In addition, the Prince's Trust is one of the single best charitable organisations in this country, particularly for helping young people from disadvantaged backgrounds make something of themselves. Whilst some say they perpetuate the class system, they do more than they need to in trying to help some of the most unfortunate break down the barriers of that system.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle. ;)
The Queen is an independently wealthy woman. She could have buggered off years ago and lived off the interest off her interest and had an unbelievably lavish lifestyle, even compared to the one she has now. Instead she spent every year up till she was 80 doing 200+ domestic engagements a year, foreign tours etc. If that was me I would have done one charity event meeting worthies and saying nice things to unfortunate people then said sod it and been a playboy for the rest of my life. You couldn't make me do one of those things at gunpoint if I knew I could bugger off and enjoy myself instead. So what if the bits in between the endless engagements, endless travelling are nice? They'd be much nicer and more of them for an elected prez.
...created with our money.
200 engagements - Because she has a sense of duty, which is great but that is not the issue.
What's the issue then?
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.
And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.
Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes
Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.
I will not discuss the monarchy in Sunderland pubs then! ;D:p
My perspective is that the Queen is head of state in a symbolic form only. She passes through whatever the government demands no matter what her own views might be. Gordon Brown in this instance is the de facto President, it's just that we call him the Prime Minister. I don't see how taking away the Queen results in increased corruption in terms of the system we already have in the UK. When it comes to further integration into the European model, I can see your case but as it stands and looking at things as they are in the UK, I struggle to see it.
Let's say the government is deciding which firms to hand mobile phone contracts to. Right now a parliamentary committeee made up of members from all parties is where the action starts. They have a working knowledge of the runners and riders and how much they're bidding before the decision gets made at ministerial level. If the minister makes a bs decision or the resulting deal looks nothing like it did in committee he's going to get crucified by the people on the committee not in his party, and probably his own party as well. If a company has to go through all that but need presidential assent, like France or Germany, the process seems to work in reverse, with assent sought before it goes to a low level. The prez's office basically shepherds the new deal through the whole process and puts it together at the end, resulting in zero oversight by anybody remotely fair or impartial and maximum possibility to fiddle the figures.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
OK I didn't see this shit. First of all, 8>6. I'm not sure what they teach you in Ireland, but that's simple math. And OF course there are going to be 5 times as many horses from the US. To get a horse overseas and acclimated is a complete bitch, it's the reason you never see American thoroughbreds go over to England.
You guys did good this was your best showing ever I believe, but you didn't have Zenyatta and how can you be owned when you have Zenyatta? No way.
Also, your statement about the horses being doped is shit. I'm sure stuff goes on in the states but no doubt it goes on EVERYWHERE. We do have testing.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
OK I didn't see this shit. First of all, 8>6. I'm not sure what they teach you in Ireland, but that's simple math. And OF course there are going to be 5 times as many horses from the US. To get a horse overseas and acclimated is a complete bitch, it's the reason you never see American thoroughbreds go over to England.
You guys did good this was your best showing ever I believe, but you didn't have Zenyatta and how can you be owned when you have Zenyatta? No way.
Also, your statement about the horses being doped is shit. I'm sure stuff goes on in the states but no doubt it goes on EVERYWHERE. We do have testing.
It's not shit. All American horses run on Lasix, a drug banned everywhere in the world apart from America.
It's also common knowledge there's an embarrassing drug image with American racing. Of the current top 10 American trainers this year only ONE has never been done for doping horses. That is a REAL fact. Serious.
6 race wins from 20 travelling horses is clearly far more impressive than 8 wins from 150 drugged up cheating ones. America got owned. Believe it. Fact.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
It's not shit. All American horses run on Lasix, a drug banned everywhere in the world apart from America.
It's also common knowledge there's an embarrassing drug image with American racing. Of the current top 10 American trainers this year only ONE has never been done for doping horses. That is a REAL fact. Serious.
6 race wins from 20 travelling horses is clearly far more impressive than 8 wins from 150 drugged up cheating ones. America got owned. Believe it. Fact.
......such an interesting opinion about the ROYAL FAMILY especially coming from one of the posters that says I go off topic.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
It's not shit. All American horses run on Lasix, a drug banned everywhere in the world apart from America.
It's also common knowledge there's an embarrassing drug image with American racing. Of the current top 10 American trainers this year only ONE has never been done for doping horses. That is a REAL fact. Serious.
6 race wins from 20 travelling horses is clearly far more impressive than 8 wins from 150 drugged up cheating ones. America got owned. Believe it. Fact.
......such an interesting opinion about the ROYAL FAMILY especially coming from one of the posters that says I go off topic.
Hold up
1. When have i ever accused you of doing anything? That's clearly rubbish. I don't give a fuck what you do.
2. I don't give a flying fuck about the ROYAL FAMILY. I don't give a fuck whether they exist or not. They are nothing but silver-spoon born rich cunts that mean nothing to me.
3. All good threads go off topic. Fact.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Horse Racing? :peeker: Fucking hell
I guess its better than Nascar in the sense that the misery ends quickly.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Nag racing is great.
I'm proud to be a 17 year degenerate gambler... homeless and on the run but still proud.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
Horse Racing? :peeker: Fucking hell
I guess its better than Nascar in the sense that the misery ends quickly.
great use of the smilie.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
:lol:
Yanky drug cheat. Fact.
-
Re: 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 ;)
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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
-
Re: 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.
That's the French.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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:
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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.
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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?
-
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
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
