Jump to content


Royal wedding

Shrek

  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

Bulldog_Drummond #21 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:22 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 32199 battles
  • 9,786
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostRamRaid90, on 19 May 2018 - 01:18 PM, said:

 

More uneducated dribble.

 

How dare you eat while there are hungry children?

 

Let's demolish Westminster Abbey and use the stones to build affordable housing for immigrants.

RamRaid90 #22 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24262 battles
  • 6,874
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 19 May 2018 - 01:04 PM, said:

 

The great thing about monarchy is that no one votes for it.  Who wants some clapped out has-been or power-mad lunatic elected as head of state?  At least with kings and princes there is the fall-back line that you did not vote for them.

 

The lower classes may complain that they did not vote for kings, but nor did they vote for their bosses or the civil servants who tell them what to do on a day to day basis.

 

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

 

I'm not biting. Go bate the republicans on the Grauniad's boards, BD.

 



Bulldog_Drummond #23 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:24 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 32199 battles
  • 9,786
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View Postarthurwellsley, on 19 May 2018 - 01:19 PM, said:

 

The monarchy would need to repeal the Tea Act of 1773 which the colonialists petitioned for in 1774. If that were done there seems no reason why given a few seats in parliament to follow their mantra of "no taxation without representation", that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should not take up residence in the White House, and perhaps the heir could be the Prince of Wales, and the spare could be Prince of Americas?

 

Our friends across the ocean already seem to have an hereditary system in place, with the placeholders or wannabe placeholders mainly being various members of the Clinton and Bush families.

VMX #24 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:24 PM

    Corporal

  • Guest
  • 8509 battles
  • 138
  • Member since:
    08-17-2011

Hi,

 

This thread is moved to Off-Topic section and let me remind you that political debates are not allowed in this forum, so lets not go too deep into that rabbit hole. 

 

Thank you,

VMX



arthurwellsley #25 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:29 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53670 battles
  • 3,883
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostVMX, on 19 May 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Hi,

 

This thread is moved to Off-Topic section and let me remind you that political debates are not allowed in this forum, so lets not go too deep into that rabbit hole. 

 

Thank you,

VMX

 

You appear to have missed completely the British sense of humour inherent in the majority of the posts in this thread, which were firmly tongue in check and nothing whatsoever to do with politics, but actually much more to do with self depreciating humour and Monty Python.

 

However, you have us completely bang to rights on Off-topic as the humour has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay.


Edited by arthurwellsley, 19 May 2018 - 02:30 PM.


r00barb #26 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:31 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26151 battles
  • 10,447
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 19 May 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

It is extraordinary how many people have deeply held opinions (aka irrational prejudices) that cannot stand up to even 5 seconds argument.

 

When you stop the low quality baiting and actually put forward an argument, I promise to give it a full 5 seconds worth of attention.



RamRaid90 #27 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24262 battles
  • 6,874
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 19 May 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

Let's demolish Westminster Abbey and use the stones to build affordable housing for immigrants.

 

I move Kensington Palace be made into a free boarding school for children with parents who cannot afford the high costs of the woefully inept public schooling system.



geoff99 #28 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:36 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 41571 battles
  • 291
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    09-20-2012

View Postarthurwellsley, on 19 May 2018 - 01:10 PM, said:

 

Personally I could not give a damn about which Saxe-Coburg Gotha is marrying who. What I do care about is the UK economy. On that basis I am very happy for the Royal Family to indulge in as many weddings as possible as they are profitable for the economy, reduce national debt, and have the potential of creating and sustaining jobs in tourism and tat.

 

(I will bite, but will discuss with a grown up rather than a professional troll.)

 

I agree with your point above, but I think the ONS maths is a bit short. As well as the wedding costs, you also need to include all of the investment and annual expenditure that is required to attract tourists and make the royals a thing in the first place. This includes direct civil list costs and indirect civil servant, and police costs. There's also the opportunity cost of the palaces, paintings, land etc that form the crown estate that could be much better deployed for the benefit of the general population.

 

Profit and Loss aside, there's also the social element to consider. If we want to become a modern egalitarian state where everyone has the same opportunities, then surely we want to dispense with nonsense and flim-flam like the royals and the aristocracy.



RamRaid90 #29 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:36 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24262 battles
  • 6,874
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postarthurwellsley, on 19 May 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:

 

You appear to have missed completely the British sense of humour inherent in the majority of the posts in this thread, which were firmly tongue in check and nothing whatsoever to do with politics, but actually much more to do with self depreciating humour and Monty Python.

 

However, you have us completely bang to rights on Off-topic as the humour has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay.

 

Speaking of more worthy causes, perhaps we should spend public money for a sense of humour transplant?

Bulldog_Drummond #30 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:40 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 32199 battles
  • 9,786
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2018 - 01:31 PM, said:

 

When you stop the low quality baiting and actually put forward an argument, I promise to give it a full 5 seconds worth of attention.

 

It's high quality baiting, old boy, that's why you not only come back for more but are unable to address the argument.
 

View Postgeoff99, on 19 May 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

 

(I will bite, but will discuss with a grown up rather than a professional troll.)

 

I agree with your point above, but I think the ONS maths is a bit short. As well as the wedding costs, you also need to include all of the investment and annual expenditure that is required to attract tourists and make the royals a thing in the first place. This includes direct civil list costs and indirect civil servant, and police costs. There's also the opportunity cost of the palaces, paintings, land etc that form the crown estate that could be much better deployed for the benefit of the general population.

 

Profit and Loss aside, there's also the social element to consider. If we want to become a modern egalitarian state where everyone has the same opportunities, then surely we want to dispense with nonsense and flim-flam like the royals and the aristocracy.

 

Yeah, let's make the aspirational opportunities the County Lines.
 

RamRaid90 #31 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:43 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24262 battles
  • 6,874
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postgeoff99, on 19 May 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

 

(I will bite, but will discuss with a grown up rather than a professional troll.)

 

I agree with your point above, but I think the ONS maths is a bit short. As well as the wedding costs, you also need to include all of the investment and annual expenditure that is required to attract tourists and make the royals a thing in the first place. This includes direct civil list costs and indirect civil servant, and police costs. There's also the opportunity cost of the palaces, paintings, land etc that form the crown estate that could be much better deployed for the benefit of the general population.

 

Profit and Loss aside, there's also the social element to consider. If we want to become a modern egalitarian state where everyone has the same opportunities, then surely we want to dispense with nonsense and flim-flam like the royals and the aristocracy.

 

The Royals total revenue for Britain last year was £1.8billion, name one other tourist attraction the world over which even comes close to that?

 

The total upkeep of the royalfamily and all it's estates per year is £285m and as a gesture of goodwill to the masses each royal family member (although legally exempt) pays income tax on their personal incomes which equates to almost £2million per year.

 

That is an overall profit to this country of over £1.5billion


Edited by RamRaid90, 19 May 2018 - 02:44 PM.


Bulldog_Drummond #32 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:44 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 32199 battles
  • 9,786
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostRamRaid90, on 19 May 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

 

I move Kensington Palace be made into a free boarding school for children with parents who cannot afford the high costs of the woefully inept public schooling system.

 

The kids in the state schools never had it so good.  Hot and cold running water, qualified schoolmasters, heated swimming pools, etc.  By contrast a picture below of my prep school playing fields.  It was character building.

 



8126Jakobsson #33 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:45 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 75740 battles
  • 4,445
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
These lizzard people had Diana killed, I tell you. 

evilchaosmonkey #34 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17809 battles
  • 1,964
  • [EIGHT] EIGHT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

¡Viva la Revolución!

 



Jigabachi #35 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 21,021
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
It was in the newspaper, it was on the TV, it was all over the internet. And it was annoying.
Why the hell do people care about that stuff so much? Don't they have anything better to do?

geoff99 #36 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:48 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 41571 battles
  • 291
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    09-20-2012

View PostRamRaid90, on 19 May 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

 

The Royals total revenue for Britain last year was £1.8billion, name one other tourist attraction the world over which even comes close to that?

 

The total upkeep of the royalfamily and all it's estates per year is £285m and as a gesture of goodwill to the masses each royal family member (although legally exempt) pays income tax on their personal incomes which equates to almost £2million per year.

 

That is an overall profit to this country of over £1.5billion

References please. 

 

Also note that revenue is not the same as profit. If a hotel charges a tourist £100, it's not free money. There's fixed and variable costs that need to be covered first.



evilchaosmonkey #37 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:50 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17809 battles
  • 1,964
  • [EIGHT] EIGHT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 19 May 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

 

The Royals total revenue for Britain last year was £1.8billion, name one other tourist attraction the world over which even comes close to that?

 

The total upkeep of the royalfamily and all it's estates per year is £285m and as a gesture of goodwill to the masses each royal family member (although legally exempt) pays income tax on their personal incomes which equates to almost £2million per year.

 

That is an overall profit to this country of over £1.5billion

 

And yet France with no royal family attracted over twice as many people than the UK, despite the draw of the royals.



Jigabachi #38 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 21,021
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostL0ddy, on 19 May 2018 - 02:13 PM, said:

That lady isn't entirely wrong, but the poor also stay poor when she spends her money on luxury items and the hungry kids stay hungry when she goes dining in a restaurant.

 



RamRaid90 #39 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:55 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24262 battles
  • 6,874
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postgeoff99, on 19 May 2018 - 01:48 PM, said:

References please. 

 

Also note that revenue is not the same as profit. If a hotel charges a tourist £100, it's not free money. There's fixed and variable costs that need to be covered first.

 

https://www.express....am-Prince-Harry

 

https://www.thesun.c...-monarchy-2017/

 

Quick google searches find these easily.



Bulldog_Drummond #40 Posted 19 May 2018 - 02:55 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 32199 battles
  • 9,786
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostJigabachi, on 19 May 2018 - 01:48 PM, said:

It was in the newspaper, it was on the TV, it was all over the internet. And it was annoying.
Why the hell do people care about that stuff so much? Don't they have anything better to do?

 

One of the less attractive aspects of soi disant intellectuals is their habit of despising ordinary people for enjoying a bit of fun.

 







Also tagged with Shrek

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users