Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on April 09, 2014, 01:25:00 pm
-
My piss is really boiling. Listening to sycophant Nicholas Witchell droning on about Royal George on his tour of New Zealand on the one o'clock news has made me want to puke. What a waste of 3 minutes of news time.
The BBC need to get it into their heads that most of us couldn't care less about the minutiae of what the Royal family get up to. Is nothing happening in Syria or Ukraine today?
The sooner we become a republic the better.
-
Really? Have you nothing better to do?
These days the monarchy has power and authority in name only, in reality they are a figurehead. The heritage etc associated with them brings in millions if not billions of £, so even if you are a republican then you can surely see there is no harm in this?
-
If anything symbolises stagnation, immovable social barriers and hierarchy, it is the royal family. They embody the exact opposite of hard work, aspiration and innovation and all the guff that we are told will make things fairer.
I couldn't care less about tourism etc. There are far more important things in life. My opening paragraph is the reason they should go. Off with their heads now.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/royals-want-new-boiler-we-pay-for-it
-
I couldn't care less about tourism etc. There are far more important things in life.
Tourism is a valuable source of foreign exchange, worth more in export value in 2012 than crude oil, food beverages and tobacco and very nearly as much as motor cars. Overseas visitors spend around £20 billion a year in this country and they contribute more than £6 billion in revenue to the Exchequer.
When combined with domestic tourism, the industry is worth UK £127 billion a year and employs 3 million people - on both measurements that accounts for around 10% of the UK economy.
http://www.visitbritain.org/britaintourismindustry/
I thought you were supposed to be an expert on economics!!!
-
I am an expert on economics. Let me clarify. I couldn't care less about the impact the Royal Family have on tourism. The loss of tourism felt by becoming a republic would be negligible.
It's the big picture that counts. All you lefties out there that don't like all the toffs at the top of the Tory party need to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4 not 5.
It is precisely because the Royal Family is 'acceptable' that the corrosive class system is perpetuated in our society. Until we get rid it will always be the same. The toffs will always have the best of it. It amazes me that it is the less intelligent members of our society that are affected the most that support the Royal family the most!
It is morally wrong that they should live in the lap of luxury at taxpayers expense when there are so many poor people in the country.
Off with their heads!
-
Oh but he is just the most beautiful little boy.. with his adorable chubby chops and little dimpled elbows. He is gorgeous.
I have no problems with us having a royal family. In this day and age they are about the only thing I do like about Britain.
-
Utter b*llocks. I would guess that the tourism effect far outweighs their cost.
"lefties"??? Again?? get off your f**king high horse for once, will you?
-
Forget tourism. It's not all about costs. It's about what's morally right. Having a bunch of inbred misfits as a Royal Family is morally indefensible on so many levels.
-
Why are you so bothered? What have they done to you?
-
(Amazingly) I was thinking exactly the same as you earlier when I had the misfortune to have BBC news on. Witchell - a total sycophant boring us shitless as he always does with his awful fawning Royal stories, keeping us bang up to date with mind numbing reports on George's latest dribble / whimper / fart / whatever.
Baby doing baby things shocker. This isn't news - it's shite.
Let me keep the quid a year in my own pocket and get rid of them all.
Republic!
-
I'm so bothered because I'm paying for them! They perpetuate the class system. They are up their own arses. They think they're something they are not. They are all weird. They don't live a normal life. Saddo's live their life through them.
Off with their heads!
-
The heritage etc associated with them brings in millions if not billions of £, so even if you are a republican then you can surely see there is no harm in this?
Proof please. This is the argument that gets put every time, that the Royal Family bring in money through tourism. Nobody ever proves it with figures. It should surely be easy enough to do so..?
And I'm talking about what the people in the Royal Family directly bring in through tourism, not the buildings or regalia.
-
Glyn
From Mick's favourite source, wiki
Baby George has so far brought in £500m - someone else can type the rest I can't be bothered
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_the_queen_bring_through_tourism?#slide=7
-
I think it is difficult to prove it empirically, but not just the current royal family, but all of the associated things (have you seen the queues in the Tower of London to see the crown jewels?) must bring in millions. No, I don't know and can't prove it, but this is highly likely?
Someone will have analysed it somewhere? Like how much revenue the Tower, Buck house, Windsor castle etc bring in each year?
As for all the stuff about class divisions, that really went away after the 2nd world war, and the following decades.
-
Could you please explain then why 0.6% of the population own 69% of the land? These people are known as the aristocratic elite.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/britains-land-is-still-owned-by-an-aristocratic-elite--but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-this-way-483131.html
-
That doesn't make them "better" people, though does it? That used to be the attitude that the people in the aristocracy or higher classes were supposedly "better" but that attitude is long gone.
I actually agree to a degree that the reporters do go OTT with the baby prince, but media will always sensationalise things - the tabloids thrive on sensationalism.
And, I have to say IC1967, on this thread at least you are showing what are long believed to be "leftie" opinions on republicanism!
-
I am an expert on economics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM
-
That doesn't make them "better" people, though does it? That used to be the attitude that the people in the aristocracy or higher classes were supposedly "better" but that attitude is long gone.
I actually agree to a degree that the reporters do go OTT with the baby prince, but media will always sensationalise things - the tabloids thrive on sensationalism.
And, I have to say IC1967, on this thread at least you are showing what are long believed to be "leftie" opinions on republicanism!
They certainly aren't 'better' people. In fact I look down my nose at them. However they still believe they are better people simply through a quirk of birth. I've hobnobbed with these type of people and I can tell you there is no doubt they think they are superior. The attitude they have to working class people is reprehensible. This is perpetuated by all the sycophancy that surrounds the Royal family.
I'm quite happy to be called an extreme right wing leftie. My views are formed regardless of whether they are right wing or left wing. I am my own man. I use my vast intellect to weigh up the pros and cons of a situation and it just so happens that most of my views fall into the extreme right wing side of things. Occasionally though the lefties do get the odd thing right and I'm quite happy to acknowledge that.
-
I LOVE THE ROYAL FAMILY!!
I HATE IC1967!!!
All that needs to be said, and saying it in uppercase lettering really emphasises my point I think!! :thumbsup:
-
It's the likes of you that allows them to keep getting away with it. You should be ashamed of yourself for falling for their propaganda.
-
I think the "Last King of Egypt" ( or somewhere similar ) in 1950's summed it up quite well when he said " in the future there will be only 5 kings in the world, Spades clubs hearts and diamonds an Great Britain"
-
Glyn
From Mick's favourite source, wiki
Baby George has so far brought in £500m - someone else can type the rest I can't be bothered
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_the_queen_bring_through_tourism?#slide=7
Somebody just saying figure proves nothing. Where's their source from, or have they just made them up?
-
I think it is difficult to prove it empirically, but not just the current royal family, but all of the associated things (have you seen the queues in the Tower of London to see the crown jewels?) must bring in millions. No, I don't know and can't prove it, but this is highly likely?
Someone will have analysed it somewhere? Like how much revenue the Tower, Buck house, Windsor castle etc bring in each year?
As for all the stuff about class divisions, that really went away after the 2nd world war, and the following decades.
The problem is, the Tower, Buck House and Windsor Castle don't belong to the Royal Family so whatever money they bring in is nothing to do with the Royal Family.
-
My point is Glyn, that the royal family is associated with all these attractions - take away the royalty now and you lose that link that all the history stuff has to the present day.
I am indifferent to the actual people in the royal family but I do think the whole surroundings and history is, on balance, good value for our country. You and others may disagree, and that is fair enough. As for the OP, he has a reputation for posting controversial stuff hence the tone of my response.
-
Its the likes of you IC1977 spouting ur pathetic political propaganda on this forum whilst thinking you know best and that you are better than every1 else and that urs is the only opinion that is worth listening too that should be ashamed of yourself! How about you actually come onto this football forum and actually start a thread about football for once, rather than your right wing shite!!!
-
Its the likes of you IC1977 spouting ur pathetic political propaganda on this forum whilst thinking you know best and that you are better than every1 else and that urs is the only opinion that is worth listening too that should be ashamed of yourself! How about you actually come onto this football forum and actually start a thread about football for once, rather than your leftie shite!!!
He tends to talk just as much b*llocks about football as well on the very rare occasion he bothers to.
-
'Kin 'ell!
We've found someone who is more right wing than Mick! Ghengis Khan. Come on down.
For what it's worth, I've never bought the "We need the Royal Family to bring in the tourists" argument.
I've been to the Acropolis. I didn't go there on the off chance that Pericles would be knocking about. I've been to the Arena at Verona, but not because I expected to see Claudius or Tiberias there.
-
My point is Glyn, that the royal family is associated with all these attractions - take away the royalty now and you lose that link that all the history stuff has to the present day.
It doesn't seem to have hurt the Palace of Versailles...
-
Sorry Billy, modified my original post, I always get mixed up between my left and right!! ;)
-
That used to be the attitude that the people in the aristocracy or higher classes were supposedly "better" but that attitude is long gone.
Really? I think you are living in fantasyland if you believe that. You only have to watch the appalling grovelling sycophancy when anyone comes into contact with the royal family to realise that these sycophants do think they are better than them. There are a few people around (like me) that don't think they are better than the rest of us. in fact I think I'm much better than they are but the vast majority can't wait to tug their forelock in their presence.
Also saying that class division has gone away is ridiculous. 0.6% of the population wouldn't own most of the land if that was the case. Who gets all the best jobs? It's the privileged elite that can afford to send their children to the best public schools.
The propaganda machine around the royal family has obviously done a very good job on you, Jucyberry, rtid88 and your kind. Wise up and smell the coffee. You are being taken for mugs.
-
Sorry Billy, modified my original post, I always get mixed up between my left and right!!
You need to be very careful when modifying posts when Billy is around. It is something he gravely disapproves of.
-
The propaganda machine around the royal family has obviously done a very good job on you, Jucyberry, rtid88 and your kind. Wise up and smell the coffee. You are being taken for mugs.
Hang on, just because I hold a different opinion means I've been taken for a mug? f**k right off!
Have you ever met any of the royal family?
And, remember the other thread on the police? You clearly support the police wholeheartedly, but who do they see as their figurehead and swear an allegiance to? The armed forces too?
To avoid any confusion, I will tell you that this is HM the Queen. Now, these days the police and miliitary hierarchy do not take orders directly from the sovereign, they answer ultimately to the government. The monarch as I said before is a figurehead, with no real power.
My point is Glyn, that the royal family is associated with all these attractions - take away the royalty now and you lose that link that all the history stuff has to the present day.
It doesn't seem to have hurt the Palace of Versailles...
You miss my point - that being that the attractiveness to foreigners of UK royal related historical places is enhanced because we still retain our monarchy. Take the Tower and the crown jewels - they aren't just historical artefacts, they are still being used. I know we will probably never agree on the value of the royalty, ad that's OK, but I think IC1967 is wrong to throw his accusatory labels about - something I don't see the majority of other posters who disagree doing.
-
Hang on, just because I hold a different opinion means I've been taken for a mug? f*** right off!
Have you ever met any of the royal family?
And, remember the other thread on the police? You clearly support the police wholeheartedly, but who do they see as their figurehead and swear an allegiance to? The armed forces too?
To avoid any confusion, I will tell you that this is HM the Queen. Now, these days the police and miliitary hierarchy do not take orders directly from the sovereign, they answer ultimately to the government. The monarch as I said before is a figurehead, with no real power.
You have been taken for a mug and it's far worse than I thought. The propaganda machine has done a right number on you. I haven't 'met' any of the royal family. The queen could come knocking on my door and I'd tell her to clear off. It makes me want to puke when I see all the sycophants who see it as the highlight of their lives if she so much as goes near them when she goes on walkabout.
The fact that the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the queen doesn't mean a thing. Again the propaganda has got to you. Swearing allegiance is purely ceremonial and you have no choice in the matter.
You seem quite happy that 0.6% of the population (the aristocratic elite) own 69% of the land. 69% ffs. Get a grip man. Tell that to your children when they can't afford to buy a house because the aristocracy won't allow housebuilding on their land. Land which has been inherited not worked for. This pathetic system is only allowed to continue because mugs like you fawn at every utterance of the royals. The royals are the head of this aristocratic monster and the head needs chopping off so the rest of the house of cards can fall down.
Off with their heads!
-
Completely off track again!
I have not acted sycophantly to royalty I just hold the opinion that there is a net economic benefit to their continued presence. This is the only point I am trying to argue on this thread.
I have not said I like or dislike the family as individuals, in fact I have said I am indifferent to them.
I have welcomed other posters' opinions and their right to disagree, but you have repeatedly (and unsurprisingly given your track record on here) gone off on tangents and made accusations as to my beliefs etc.
I have disagreed (quite happy) with Glyn on the royalty issues on this thread, but he has not responded with unfounded allegations as you have.
Shows a lot about you, doesn't it?
I have also repeatedly said that I know that the monarchy has no real power, and I agree that the role in respect of the police etc is ceremonial, but how does that make me a mug? I am not a victim of anyone's propaganda, especially not yours!
How the f**k you can conclude that I am "happy" about the land ownership issue that YOU brought up, I have no idea, as I have made no comment whatsoever on that debate. Please don't draw conclusions on what you think that I think, when I have not given any evidence for you to make such inferences.
How you can call posters on here "lefites" (even when those allegations are your opinions, unfounded on facts) when you state such a strong opinion on land ownership, which is quite a leftie view? Now as far as I am concerned you can have whatever opinion you want on each issue, but to call folks one way then spout off similar, makes you a f**king hypocrite.
-
Here's what you said, 'As for all the stuff about class divisions, that really went away after the 2nd world war, and the following decades'.
I disagree profoundly. To show my disagreement I informed you that the aristocratic elite (0.6% of the population) own 69% of the land. Your rather strange response was that this doesn't make them 'better' people. So due to your lack of a coherent response I stated that you seem quite happy with this arrangement. Feel free to enlighten us if this is not the case.
I have stated that I am an extreme right winger. However if the lefties occasionally get something right I'm not going to disagree just for the sake of it. I only disagree with lefties on 99% of things.
Indifference is not an option. You are for them if you are not against them.
-
Here's what you said, 'As for all the stuff about class divisions, that really went away after the 2nd world war, and the following decades'. I was referring to peoples' attitudes in general - you don't get folks (in general) doffing their caps to the toffs, you don't have young girls looking for a career in "service". That was the gist of my point.
I disagree profoundly. To show my disagreement I informed you that the aristocratic elite (0.6% of the population) own 69% of the land. Your rather strange response was that this doesn't make them 'better' people. So due to your lack of a coherent response I stated that you seem quite happy with this arrangement. Feel free to enlighten us if this is not the case. I was making no comment about land ownership at all, just that being rich and a landowner does not make anyone "better" than the average working man or woman - again, nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of distribution of wealth of which I have made no comment whatsoever, so how can you dare to interpret what my opinion may be????
I have stated that I am an extreme right winger. However if the lefties occasionally get something right I'm not going to disagree just for the sake of it. I only disagree with lefties on 99% of things. you can agree and disagree with what you like, but to call folks on here lefties with no real evidence, then to offer left wing views of your own that you do try and justify, is IMHO hypocritical
Indifference is not an option. You are for them if you are not against them. Yes it is! It is my right to have whatever opinion I want. I am indifferent to the individual royals - I do not know them personally even though I have met one of them, briefly, once, so I can only judge by their public personas, to which I am wholly indifferent. I believe having the royalty is good for the country - isn't that ultimately what we were debating anyway? and I stand by that opinion. I repeat, others may disagree which is perfectly OK. Others, however, do not draw the same un-evidenced conclusions as you, nor do they bring up tangents such as land ownership.
Whether the other posters and readers to this forum agree or disagree with what you say, it is fairly obvious that you constantly try and twist things, what other folks say, and give twisted interpretations of what you think others believe.
Are you an MP by any chance?
-
I was referring to peoples' attitudes in general - you don't get folks (in general) doffing their caps to the toffs, you don't have young girls looking for a career in "service". That was the gist of my point.
To say class division is a thing of the past is wildly inaccurate. The lack of doffing caps and going into service is not proof. I produced compelling evidence that there is still an aristocratic elite. I proved this by showing that unbelievably they own 69% of the land. My evidence that there is still class division stands up to scrutiny much better than your spurious 'better', 'doffing caps', 'going into service' reasons as proof.
It is my contention that it is much more difficult to get this land back while ever we have a royal family as this institutionalises aristocracy and class division into our society. You and other royalists are allowing this reprehensible state of affairs either by your indifference or whole hearted support for royalty. You and others that feel this way need to engage brain and wake up and smell the coffee.
-
I was making no comment about land ownership at all, just that being rich and a landowner does not make anyone "better" than the average working man or woman - again, nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of distribution of wealth of which I have made no comment whatsoever, so how can you dare to interpret what my opinion may be????
I made the comment about land ownership to prove to you that there is still class division as this land is owned by the aristocratic elite which is headed by the royal family. I interpret your opinion because you seem reticent to state what it is even when asked to do so. Come on man. Get off the fence and let us know what you really think. It's very difficult debating with someone that vacillates so much.
-
Not so sure that owning land shows "Aristocratic Elite", after all, is the Church ( whatever denomination ) not the largest land owner in UK.
-
you can agree and disagree with what you like, but to call folks on here lefties with no real evidence, then to offer left wing views of your own that you do try and justify, is IMHO hypocritical
No real evidence? Get a grip man. It's obvious to any right minded person that this forum is dominated by lefties. I'm 99% extreme right wing and 1% leftie. It's not as black and white as you would have us believe.
-
House many houses do you own Mick?
-
Not so sure that owning land shows "Aristocratic Elite", after all, is the Church ( whatever denomination ) not the largest land owner in UK.
No it isn't. I refer you to my previous post which shows the evidence for my claim.
-
House many houses do you own Mick?
Not as many as prince Charles. The difference is that I worked and saved the money to buy my properties. Charlie just inherited his.
-
Yet again you are labelling me, and drawing conclusions.
About land ownership, I have not made any claims as to the rights or wrongs of it, my point is about people's attitudes not how much land they own... Therefore I see no reason to engage in a debate about land ownership itself. And as I don't give an opinion on that, please don't draw conclusions based upon your suppositions.
You also have a habit of claiming your opinions as proofs, when I just offer an opinion and don't claim any proof. Where I offer no opinion, that proves nothing!
you can agree and disagree with what you like, but to call folks on here lefties with no real evidence, then to offer left wing views of your own that you do try and justify, is IMHO hypocritical
No real evidence? Get a grip man. It's obvious to any right minded person that this forum is dominated by lefties. I'm 99% extreme right wing and 1% leftie. It's not as black and white as you would have us believe.
Oh and by the way, you are happy to justify your own partially leftie stance, yet you have no idea how much of a left wing/right wing stance others have in the totality of their opinions, you just judge folks on individual opinions ie in the police thread.
-
https://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofThePrinceofWales.aspx (https://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofThePrinceofWales.aspx)
Seen as IC1967 brought up Prince Charles, here are some quotes:
The Prince of Wales's life and work are funded predominantly by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince of Wales does not receive money from the Civil List, but the Grants-in-Aid paid to The Queen's Household are used, in part, to support His Royal Highness's official activities.
Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).
His Royal Highness receives the annual net surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall and chooses to use a large proportion of the income to meet the cost of his public and charitable work.
The Prince also uses part of the income to meet the costs of his private life and those of his wife, The Duchess of Cornwall, and his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.
The Duchy is tax exempt, but The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays income tax at the highest rate on his taxable income from it.
And before you reply with some twisted interpretation of my post, please note that I have drawn no conclusion from the above link and quotes, nor agreed or disagreed, just provided the information for others to read and make their own opinions....
-
House many houses do you own Mick?
Not as many as prince Charles. The difference is that I worked and saved the money to buy my properties. Charlie just inherited his.
What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?
-
Yes it is! It is my right to have whatever opinion I want. I am indifferent to the individual royals - I do not know them personally even though I have met one of them, briefly, once, so I can only judge by their public personas, to which I am wholly indifferent. I believe having the royalty is good for the country - isn't that ultimately what we were debating anyway? and I stand by that opinion. I repeat, others may disagree which is perfectly OK. Others, however, do not draw the same un-evidenced conclusions as you, nor do they bring up tangents such as land ownership.
Being indifferent is not having an opinion. You may believe having a royal family is good for the country so it is my job to prove to you that they are not. I have done this extremely well but unfortunately you are still indifferent. I have produced evidence. It is you that is going off at a tangent with your doffing caps statement and the like. I'm amazed you think 0.6% of the population owning 69% of the land is not evidence of an aristocratic elite and class division that leaves your argument in tatters.
-
What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?
I will sell them before I die and spend all the money trying to keep the economy going. No way will my children inherit. I want them to stand on their own two feet and make their own way in life.
-
Yes it is! It is my right to have whatever opinion I want. I am indifferent to the individual royals - I do not know them personally even though I have met one of them, briefly, once, so I can only judge by their public personas, to which I am wholly indifferent. I believe having the royalty is good for the country - isn't that ultimately what we were debating anyway? and I stand by that opinion. I repeat, others may disagree which is perfectly OK. Others, however, do not draw the same un-evidenced conclusions as you, nor do they bring up tangents such as land ownership.
Being indifferent is not having an opinion. You may believe having a royal family is good for the country so it is my job to prove to you that they are not. I have done this extremely well but unfortunately you are still indifferent. I have produced evidence. It is you that is going off at a tangent with your doffing caps statement and the like. I'm amazed you think 0.6% of the population owning 69% of the land is not evidence of an aristocratic elite and class division that leaves your argument in tatters.
FFS...
There are two debates there - the benefit of the royal family, and the land ownership issue which you brought up later.
I do not want to engage in a debate on land ownership, isn't that 3 times I have said that now, so you cannot draw a conclusion (about me) on a matter I have not expressed an opinion of!
And who the f**k are you to tell me what I can and can't have an opinion of??? I am indifferent to the royals as people, period. Get over it.
-
What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?
I will sell them before I die and spend all the money trying to keep the economy going. No way will my children inherit. I want them to stand on their own two feet and make their own way in life.
And you know when that will be do you? Like things never happen suddenly?
And although I have disagreed with you strongly on the forum, that does not mean I wish you ill in any way shape or form...
-
What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?
I will sell them before I die and spend all the money trying to keep the economy going. No way will my children inherit. I want them to stand on their own two feet and make their own way in life.
And you know when that will be do you?
Course he does. Didn't you know he knew absolutely everything?
-
Course he does. Didn't you know he knew absolutely everything?
Actually, RedJ, now you say that, I clearly see it.
Everything Mick/IC1967 says is wholly 100% factually correct, he is always right when he "interprets" other people's opinions regardless of how much evidence they have posted.
I must bow down to his vastly superior and excellent knowledge of absolutely everything.
I may as well top myself right now, as life now seems utterly pointless.
-
Contrary to popular opinion on this forum I do not think I know everything, I know I know everything. I always give the other person's point of view consideration before deciding I was right all along.
I've got the dying thing sorted. If I should die before getting it all spent it will be left to PETA.
-
Everything IC1967 says is wholly 100% factually correct, he is always right when he "interprets" other people's opinions regardless of how much evidence they have posted.
I must bow down to his vastly superior and excellent knowledge of absolutely everything.
I may as well top myself right now, as life now seems utterly pointless.
What an excellent post. Please re-evaluate your life. It's not as bad as it seems. If everyone had your outlook that I come into contact with there would be a lot of dead bodies about. I don't want that. All I'm trying to do is educate you. A bit of gratitude now and then wouldn't go amiss.
-
Contrary to popular opinion on this forum I do not think I know everything, I know I know everything.
Totally agree, 100%... Don't know how it took so long for me to realise this.
-
IC1967 or whatever your name is , I suggest if you don't like this country,you apply for a passport and leave. There are alot more places to live,apart from under your stone,bye bye Bigerty Bigerty boring person
-
Another royalist being taken for a mug. Just because I want rid of the royal family and the return of the land to the masses doesn't mean I don't like the country. Nothing would ever change for the good if we all had your couldn't care less attitude.
-
https://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofThePrinceofWales.aspx (https://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofThePrinceofWales.aspx)
Seen as IC1967 brought up Prince Charles, here are some quotes:
The Prince of Wales's life and work are funded predominantly by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince of Wales does not receive money from the Civil List, but the Grants-in-Aid paid to The Queen's Household are used, in part, to support His Royal Highness's official activities.
Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).
His Royal Highness receives the annual net surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall and chooses to use a large proportion of the income to meet the cost of his public and charitable work.
The Prince also uses part of the income to meet the costs of his private life and those of his wife, The Duchess of Cornwall, and his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.
The Duchy is tax exempt, but The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays income tax at the highest rate on his taxable income from it.
And before you reply with some twisted interpretation of my post, please note that I have drawn no conclusion from the above link and quotes, nor agreed or disagreed, just provided the information for others to read and make their own opinions....
The big point you're missing is that if there were no Duke of Cornwall, the assets of the Ducky of Cornwall would revert to the state. ie They don't belong to Prince Charles - he is taking part of, giving us back some of, our own money.
-
It's unbelievable the spurious lengths royal sycophants will go to to defend the indefensible.
-
It's unbelievable the spurious lengths royal sycophants will go to to defend the indefensible.
It is isn't it?
-
All you royalists need to get a grip. You are all being duped by the royal family propaganda machine. You need to stop and think for a change about the incredible damage perpetuating their existence does to society. While ever you mugs fall for it there will always be serious class division and most of the land will be owned by a very tiny minority. All the best jobs will continue to be taken by 'posh' people. They'll continue to have the best education money can buy. They'll continue to live in the lap of luxury etc. and the people on the bottom rung of society will continue to struggle.
It's a no brainer. I often wonder why some people have brains if they refuse to use them. If this carries on then in the future there will be royal sycophants born with brains that don't allow rational thinking as evolution will take over.
-
Right, let's get this tourism baloney debunked.
The claim that the royal family is good for tourism is untrue. Our national tourist agency, VisitBritain can't find any evidence for this claim.
Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24.
Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so.
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423
-
Right, let's get this tourism baloney debunked.
The claim that the royal family is good for tourism is untrue. Our national tourist agency, VisitBritain can't find any evidence for this claim.
Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24.
Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so.
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423
Your link is to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions(ALVA) - not VisitBritain. These are two entirely seperate organisations.
ALVA promotes the 'big' tourist attractions to government under their President.........Prince Andrew. So join them and you might get a cup of tea with him.
Where on VistBritain does it say that? On the page that promotes Royal Britain?
http://www.visitbritainshop.com/world/articles-and-features/royal-britain.html
How suprising that attractions that are not open to the public are not high on visitor numbers - and ones that are free are. What is the most popular attraction that charges by the way? What is it's connection to royalty?
Without a Royal in residence Buckingham Palace is just another big house - and a not very interesting one at that. It is only this Royal connection that makes it interesting.
-
Y
Your link is to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions(ALVA) - not VisitBritain. These are two entirely seperate organisations.
I know. ALVA produce figures, VisitBritain don't. Hence why I used the ALVA league table.
-
YYour link is to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions(ALVA) - not VisitBritain. These are two entirely seperate organisations.
I know. ALVA produce figures, VisitBritain don't. Hence why I used the ALVA league table.
Why quote VisitBritain at the beginning of your post then?
-
ALVA promotes the 'big' tourist attractions to government under their President.........Prince Andrew. So join them and you might get a cup of tea with him.
Don't know what you are on about. The league table shows large attractions all the way down to small. They don't just show 'big' ones.
-
Why quote VisitBritain at the beginning of your post then?
Because they are a reputable organisation that can't find any evidence to substantiate the often trotted out claim by royalists that the royal family are useful because they bring in loads of tourists. It is possible to use more than one source to make a point you know.
-
Why quote VisitBritain at the beginning of your post then?
Because they are a reputable organisation that can't find any evidence to substantiate the often trotted out claim by royalists that the royal family are useful because they bring in loads of tourists. It is possible to use more than one source to make a point you know.
Where does it say they can't find any evidence?
-
I'm sure I read it somewhere recently in this report -
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/people-places/people/tourism
-
Where on VistBritain does it say that? On the page that promotes Royal Britain?
http://www.visitbritainshop.com/world/articles-and-features/royal-britain.html
I refer you to my previous post.
-
How suprising that attractions that are not open to the public are not high on visitor numbers - and ones that are free are. What is the most popular attraction that charges by the way? What is it's connection to royalty?
Again I don't know what you are on about. The league table shows which ones are free, which ones charge and which ones use a combination. It also answers your last question. Have you bothered looking at it?
-
I'm sure I read it somewhere recently in this report -
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/people-places/people/tourism
Nope, nothing there from VisitBritain that. Says they can't find any evidence
-
Without a Royal in residence Buckingham Palace is just another big house - and a not very interesting one at that. It is only this Royal connection that makes it interesting.
Whether Buck house is interesting or not is hardly going to have a major impact on tourist numbers. The powers that be want it open to the public more but the royals don't. Guess who got their way.
-
Nope, nothing there from VisitBritain that. Says they can't find any evidence
You've not looked hard enough. I'm sure it's there. I spent many hours looking at this report before I made my claim. I pride myself on producing fact based statements.
If you don't think my claim is correct then why don't you point us all to a statement by VisitBritain that says the royals do bring in a lot of tourists and are therefore great value for money?
-
Nope, nothing there from VisitBritain that. Says they can't find any evidence
You've not looked hard enough. I'm sure it's there. I spent many hours looking at this report before I made my claim. I pride myself on producing fact based statements.
If you don't think my claim is correct then why don't you point us all to a statement by VisitBritain that says the royals do bring in a lot of tourists and are therefore great value for money?
If you're that sure it's there point us in the direction of it.
As for your other point, I never made any claim, so have no reason to point you towards anything. You prove your point without waffling or trying to say others have said something they haven't
-
I've given you the report. What more do you want? I haven't got time to wade through it all again just to prove a point. Don't believe me if you don't want to. I don't mind.
-
I've given you the report. What more do you want? I haven't got time to wade through it all again just to prove a point. Don't believe me if you don't want to. I don't mind.
Until such time as you provide direct evidence, I'll take it as a no you can't find any evidence
Game set and match!
-
Haha.
-
Could you please explain then why 0.6% of the population own 69% of the land? These people are known as the aristocratic elite.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/britains-land-is-still-owned-by-an-aristocratic-elite--but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-this-way-483131.html
Wrong Mick. Land owners of the class you infer own less than 12% of UK land. In order of holding the land top 10 owners are as follows.
Forestry Commission 2'571'270 acres
Nat Trust 630'000 acres
MOD 592'000 acres
Pension Funds 550'000
Utilities 500'000
Crown 358'000
RSPB 321'000
Duke 1 240'000
Scottish Nat Trust 192'000
Duke 2 145'700
Oh ....And the Anglican Church (alone) owns more than 120'000 acres of land in just Rural areas. Huge tracts of land are owned in Cathederal Cities by Anglican Church.
-
ALVA promotes the 'big' tourist attractions to government under their President.........Prince Andrew. So join them and you might get a cup of tea with him.
Don't know what you are on about. The league table shows large attractions all the way down to small. They don't just show 'big' ones.
How suprising that attractions that are not open to the public are not high on visitor numbers - and ones that are free are. What is the most popular attraction that charges by the way? What is it's connection to royalty?
Again I don't know what you are on about. The league table shows which ones are free, which ones charge and which ones use a combination. It also answers your last question. Have you bothered looking at it?
No it doesn't. And you either havent bothered looking at it properly or are too thick tounderstand it. The 'league table' only shows the vists made to attractions who are membrs of ALVA. From their website:
ALVA's 55 members are the UK's most popular, iconic and important museums, galleries, palaces, castles, cathedrals, zoos, historic houses, heritage sites, gardens and leisure attractions.
The President of ALVA is Prince Andrew - so therefore they are connected to royalty - and use the royalty to promote themselves and bring money in.
Visit Briatin also use the royalty to promote Briatin to foreign tourists - as I put in my previous link. Have you bothered to look at it?
-
Wrong. Land owners of the class you infer own less than 12% of UK land. In order of holding the land top 10 owners are as follows.
Forestry Commission 2'571'270 acres
Nat Trust 630'000 acres
MOD 592'000 acres
Pension Funds 550'000
Utilities 500'000
Crown 358'000
RSPB 321'000
Duke 1 240'000
Scottish Nat Trust 192'000
Duke 2 145'700
Oh ....And the Anglican Church (alone) owns more than 120'000 acres of land in just Rural areas. Huge tracts of land are owned in Cathederal Cities by Anglican Church.
We are both right. You are talking about the total land mass of the UK. I am talking about (and I accept that I should have made it clearer) the land that we live on. For example no-one is going to want to live on Ben Nevis or in the middle of a forest.
-
Well....Better ask crofters of Ben Nevis, and Robin Hood about that.
-
Ben Nevis, at 1,344 meters, is Britain’s highest mountain with an impressive presence that towers over Fort William. Every year around 400,000 people visit Glen Nevis and around 110,000 people walk to the summit of Ben Nevis. The Ben Nevis area has no resident population.
http://uk.ask.com/question/do-people-live-on-ben-nevis
-
Wrong. Land owners of the class you infer own less than 12% of UK land. In order of holding the land top 10 owners are as follows.
Forestry Commission 2'571'270 acres
Nat Trust 630'000 acres
MOD 592'000 acres
Pension Funds 550'000
Utilities 500'000
Crown 358'000
RSPB 321'000
Duke 1 240'000
Scottish Nat Trust 192'000
Duke 2 145'700
Oh ....And the Anglican Church (alone) owns more than 120'000 acres of land in just Rural areas. Huge tracts of land are owned in Cathederal Cities by Anglican Church.
We are both right. You are talking about the total land mass of the UK. I am talking about (and I accept that I should have made it clearer) the land that we live on. For example no-one is going to want to live on Ben Nevis or in the middle of a forest.
My daughter has a house in the New Forest.
-
OK. For the pedants out there let me be clear. I'm talking about land that could reasonably be classified as having residential potential.
-
All land, Hill, Dale, Swamp, Mountain, has POTENTIAL to be residential.
-
OK. For the pedants out there let me be clear. I'm talking about land that could reasonably be classified as having residential potential.
Flood plains now fit that criteria apparently.
-
Changing the goal posts again are we?
-
Yes they are. Unbelievably pedantic.
-
Aren't you just.
-
Make your mind up is it we (plural) or you (singular)?
-
Happy 88th Birthday to Her Majesty for today.
God save the Queen!
-
God save our Queen!
Happy Birthday Ma'am
-
The only good news is that she's a year nearer from being a burden on the taxpayer.
-
Bigerty ,Bigerty ,boring Kitson