THE Election - Made your mind up yet ??

[angry cat]

Booky, this is your comment about our Queen:

 

by Bookworm:

"Yes, I know how it was formed. As for the Queen, she has absolutely no say in the matter except to rubberstamp it, so whether she approves or not is irrelevant, and certainly doesn't mean that she thinks it's a good idea, if she thinks about these things at all that is."

 

"... if she thinks about these things at all that is. [Emphasis Added]

 

If she (The Queen) thinks about these things at all?

[woody1066]

It reminds me of one of Harry Enfield's Characters ... YouTube - Harry Enfield - Oi! Wales! No!

 

Actually I think this one is more relevant

 

YouTube - Harry Enfield - Tory Boy

[woody1066]

Booky, this is your comment about our Queen:

 

by Bookworm:

"Yes, I know how it was formed. As for the Queen, she has absolutely no say in the matter except to rubberstamp it, so whether she approves or not is irrelevant, and certainly doesn't mean that she thinks it's a good idea, if she thinks about these things at all that is."

 

"... if she thinks about these things at all that is. [Emphasis Added]

 

If she (The Queen) thinks about these things at all?

Personally I think the lot of em are unelected scroungers..There ya go drag me to the tower

[Bookworm]

Errr, yes. :-?

 

Do you REALLY believe that she spends any time at all poring over those speeches? She is an over-privileged anachronism with a social diary full of waving, collecting bouquets and state banquets, and I doubt that she spends any time pondering on whether the coalition will be a good thing or not, especially as she's got b*gger all power to do anything about it even if she doesn't.

 

Again, the keyword to which you seem to be blind was "IF".

 

Def off to bed now. ;-)

[babybear39]

It's so nice to know that there are people, who have more than their fair share, sneering down at us who work so hard to try to redress social bankruptcy.

 

[angry cat]

They also DID NOT want the CONDEM bum chums in power

 

Go back to your brain washed media and psych (difficult without more than a few braincells, we know, but try) yourself up for another bigotted onslaught tomorrow thinking of only your precious selves

 

Well, as you are aware, we now have a coalition government; nobody is happy about that fact. But, in reality, it is a question of; wait and see.

 

Incidentally, the term 'Bigot' goes both ways..."bigotted onslaught" (GB labelled Mrs, Duffy, as a Bigotted woman)

Edited May 24, 2010 by angry cat
error

[babybear39]

Is she suing?

[angry cat]

Errr, yes. :-?

 

Do you REALLY believe that she spends any time at all poring over those speeches? She is an over-privileged anachronism with a social diary full of waving, collecting bouquets and state banquets, and I doubt that she spends any time pondering on whether the coalition will be a good thing or not, especially as she's got b*gger all power to do anything about it even if she doesn't.

 

Again, the keyword to which you seem to be blind was "IF".

 

Def off to bed now. ;-)

 

Anti Royalist and oh, how you love to use: "IF"

[woody1066]

You use the term anti royalist as if its a bad thing

[angry cat]

You use the term anti royalist as if its a bad thing

 

Yes, I do!

I will not enter into a debate about: Our Queen. However, it is extremely offensive when someone uses (again) the term; IF.

: "if she thinks about these things at all that is"

[angry cat]

Off to bed now.

: by BB:

"difficult without more than a few braincells..."

 

BB, does love the labelling LOL

[woody1066]

Yes, I do!

I will not enter into a debate about: Our Queen. However, it is extremely offensive when someone uses (again) the term; IF.

: "if she thinks about these things at all that is"

 

She will be "MY" queen when I get a say to keep her and her dodgy family or not

[Bookworm]

Anti-royalist and VERY proud of it, yes.

 

Like faith however, I appreciate that it is a personal thing, and since it makes no difference to me whatsoever (unlike politics), I have no interest in debating the matter. Some believe in deities, some in queens or kings, some in both at the same time, whatever helps you through the day, I say. ;-)

 

Actually, that reminds me of something: Fred, when you asked me how I would solve the financial crisis, that really should have been top of the list: stop subsidising the royal family. There, that should more than cover a few university places, nurses and medical funding.

[Conniff]

I'm not anti royalist and would rather my money went to them than the pickys and chavs that scrounge benefits and give no return whatsoever for the money they receive.

 

i don't think the 64p per year it cost me is asking too much.

[Bookworm]

I'm not anti royalist and would rather my money went to them than the pickys and chavs that scrounge benefits and give no return whatsoever for the money they receive.

 

i don't think the 64p per year it cost me is asking too much.

64 p per year, that's pure spin. It doesn't take into account all the tax write-offs, and you'd actually need to divide the cost by the number who are paying, not the total population.

 

£41.5 million is what it is costing the tax payer. Just think of it, get them to pay their own way, and you could hand over the vast majority of the population over 3/4 million pounds EACH. Get rid of them altogether and seize most of their assets, properties etc, and open them to the public, my goodness, the income stream that would come flooding!

[babybear39]

I'm not anti royalist either, but the Queen is quite capable of funding the whole sorry mess out of her own personal fortune

[Conniff]

i dunno Bookie, you are either deliberately opposing and dismissing everything that's said by other to get a reaction or you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.

[babybear39]

Worm + chips = urgh!

[angry cat]

i dunno Bookie, you are either deliberately opposing and dismissing everything that's said by other to get a reaction or you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.

 

One hell of a chip on her shoulder; does appear that way.

 

And now begining to sound like; Comrade Bookworm!

[Dodgy Geezer]

First of all, the royal family is not "paid" in the traditional manner. The Queen and Price Philip are due the money in the civil list. The civil list is paid in exchange from income from most of the crown lands, such as all of Regent Street, in an agreement that goes back over 300 years.

 

The Queen and Prince Philip (not Prince Charles who gets his funds from the Duchy of Cornwall) covers most expenses associated with the performing of state duties, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, official entertainment, and upkeep of the Royal Households. The Queen also pays expenses for other royals who perform public duties off this list.

 

The payment to the Queen this year is 7.9 million pounds, an amount that has not risen in 20 years. Prince Philip gets 359,000 pounds for his expenses. I think, but I am not certain, that taxes are paid off this.

 

Now, lets talk nuts and bolts. First of all, the Royal Family gives Britain prestige in ways that being a Republic with President Thatcher, for example, cannot give. For example, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth. She attends meetings and summits and Commonwealth Games, she binds it together, and the benefits for Britain are enormous as a result. Even if you are against the London Olympics, the fact that Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee is in 2012 definitely helped clinch the deal. Commonwealth nations love the symbolism of the Crown as the eternal link between the former British colonies. Why is it that only Britain commands this respect from its former subjects? The answer is simple. It is the feeling that British traditions are to be cherished. this is what the Queen represents, and I assure you that the trade benefits to Britain are worth much more than the small amount the civil list costs each year.

 

Tourism to the United Kingdom is one of the nation's biggest revenue producers. The mystique that the royal family adds to this is enormous and incalculable. Ask your average first-time tourist what they really want to see, and the majority will say anything related to the royal family. People tend to discount this, but the fact that the royal family is of huge interest to many around the world.

 

Now, do you honestly thing a Royal sits around and does nothing? Look at Princess Anne. How would you like her job? She has to do hundreds of "official visits" that consist of driving in to a whole bunch of people who are starring at your every move for a day which most will never forget. You will have to shake hundreds of not thousands of cold and flu-laden hands, probably deal with people who have strong grips, and at least "taste" the same horrid chicken you are served during some luncheon. And the scene repeats itself day after day. This is hard work - but one in which many people are rewarded for the hard work they put in to earn a royal visit.

 

 

And on a lighter note. Sorry if its been done already but,

 

If we are now governed by the ConDem Party,

 

does that make us a ConDemNation.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Dodgy Geezer

[babybear39]

I'm proud to be a colonnial

[Conniff]

It is estimated that 25% of the visitors that come to this country come to see the Queen so in real terms the profit produced by overseas visitors who come specifically to see the queen is £160 million.

Now that seems like a good sound business idea

It costs us allegedly 37 million to return a profit of 160 million, now that makes sense

[Bookworm]

i dunno Bookie, you are either deliberately opposing and dismissing everything that's said by other to get a reaction or you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.

Why, because I don't run with the sheep? :-?

 

I don't deliberately oppose or dsmiss anything, but I do question numbers. I do not accept that it only costs 64 p per person to fund the royals, becaus it's blatantly incorrect.

 

Chip on my shoulder? About what exactly? Simply because I have strong opinions doesn't make it so, it means that I know my own mind and am not afraid to speak it. If that characterises me as having a chip on my shoulder, then I'll take that accolade ahead of mindless sheep.

[Bookworm]

It is estimated that 25% of the visitors that come to this country come to see the Queen so in real terms the profit produced by overseas visitors who come specifically to see the queen is £160 million.

Now that seems like a good sound business idea

It costs us allegedly 37 million to return a profit of 160 million, now that makes sense

"estimated". Hmmm.

 

How many more would flock if they could actually visit those royal haunts? Buckingham Palace, Windsor, even Sandringham.

 

I hate it to break it to you, but Versailles is more of a tourist attraction because you can visit it whole. Opening a couple of rooms and a gift shop just doesn't bring in the same attraction.

 

Secondly, people don't come to see the Queen, if they did, no tmany of them would get their wish! They do come to visit historical building linked to the royals through the ages, which is why the Tower of London is so popular for instance.

 

One could also argue that if 25% come to see royal stuff, it means that 75% DON'T. Not what I would call a top attraction myself. Let's face it, if the royals were a Disney attraction, they'd get shut down pretty sharpish with that kind of appeal.

[Bookworm]

One hell of a chip on her shoulder; does appear that way.

To have one, one needs a reason. What reason could I possibly have? Your lack of logical reasoning is breathtaking, as is your hostility when you can't come up with reasoned arguments.

And now begining to sound like; Comrade Bookworm!

That's the difference: You say it as an insult, I see it as a badge of honour. ;-)