Shameful

[drew]

France got rid of their Royal family in the 1700s, Paris is the most visited city in the World.
Perhaps our tourist trade would get a boost if we became a Republic.

Where did you get the stat that Paris is the most visited city in the world? The following seem to disagree with you.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-popular-cities-in-the-world-to-visit.html

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/these-are-the-worlds-most-visited-cities-in-2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/galleries/Top-20-most-visited-cities/

 

[lawros left foot]

Where did you get the stat that Paris is the most visited city in the world? The following seem to disagree with you.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-popular-cities-in-the-world-to-visit.html

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/these-are-the-worlds-most-visited-cities-in-2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/galleries/Top-20-most-visited-cities/

Heard on BBC news the other day, take it up with them

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Quite. Who actually sees the Queen when they go to see Buck palace. I say "see", I mean strain to peek over the heads and phones of 2'000 Japs squashed up against the railings. Nobody actually gets to see inside do they?

I've been inside, and didn't have to pay. I was invited to a garden party.

 

[Diego Napier]

Your assumption may or may not be correct but his outrage can still be further heightened/aroused.

Fair enough, it was a bit of a semantically abstruse loss leader.

Hardly leaving it aside when you embolden then arbitrarily dismiss it.

OK, let's address it. "According to one report supposed austerity savings made in the last parliament £44 Billion" along with

Saying that the figure is only representative of supposed Austerity savings so difficult to see how this is confirming any bias. Hardly wilful misrepresentation … just using the UK taxpayer line to elicit sympathy and agreement with my pov. The ONS do their best to take into account the many ways money flows to and from Brussels before arriving at that figure. Apples & Apples.

I dismissed it because on a minor note the report was unattributed.

Of greater significance, it's another example of myriad confirmation bias proliferated by NSC posters anxious to bolster the credibility of their viewpoint by proving it with "facts", you being one of the more ardent promulgators. Google will verify anything, any one report quoted can be refuted by another, bandying them around doesn't prove anything.

Of greater significance still is that you don't grasp you're attempting to equate a one dimensional one-way self-imposed fiscal restraint with a two-way monetary mechanism that generates far greater multi-dimensional benefit than can be represented by simple cash flow analysis.

Most significant of all, you seems unable to appreciate that it's principles that should persuade rather than "facts" or reports wheeled out to bolster your opinion or prove my points bigger than yours or blind by science or sway the easily persuaded or elicit sympathy.

Better spent on UK priorities as defined by our elected representatives. Rather than spent by the EU on their priorities.

Again simplistic. Of course none of our national priorities could possibly coincide with EU priorities. Or that we have any elected representation in the EU. Or that we have any "bureaucratic" representation in Brussels. Or that we haven't helped shape EU policies. Or that we haven't negotiated significant opt outs. No, you're right, it's a one dimensional world, it's us and them and the EU is the big bad bogey man.

No, I just knew what type of response was coming. Entertaining as ever DN

Taking that at face value, happy to oblige

 

[BeHereNow]

How about we stop giving BILLIONS of pounds in foreign aid to countries with space programmes before we start having a go at The Queen who has spent most of her life serving her country?

Oh, and while we're at it, why are we so keen on letting "refugees" in the country, yet not housing homeless servicemen and women?

This building is clearly of historic value and needs repairing, and just like every other part of a governments budget, it has been allocated a specific amount. You make out as if Her Majesty has gone to a charity and forcebally taken the money out of some little child's hands while he cries and says "Please ma'am, may I have some more?"

I would much rather have a head of state who has been there most of their lives than a self serving President who is really ran by whoever funds them.

Shove your republicanism up your arse.

 

[The Birdman]

Have you seen what Plumbers and Electricians charge these days...

Now the połes have gone home the price has gone up.

 

[Tarpon]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-funding-rise-buckingham-palace-a7425446.html

The 'Royals' must piss themselves laughing as they continue to get away with this, they know no shame.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

OK, let's address it. "According to one report supposed austerity savings made in the last parliament £44 Billion" along with

I dismissed it because on a minor note the report was unattributed.

Of greater significance, it's another example of myriad confirmation bias proliferated by NSC posters anxious to bolster the credibility of their viewpoint by proving it with "facts", you being one of the more ardent promulgators. Google will verify anything, any one report quoted can be refuted by another, bandying them around doesn't prove anything.

Even if I had attributed it your argument suggests an alternative source with a different view could refute it so it's provenance can't really be the issue. Once again I didn't suggest the figure was set in stone or 100% accurate more an example of the supposed savings from Austerity. Therefore not in any way an attempt at confirmation bias. On the wider point yes adding links from credible sources may help to reinforce a viewpoint but that was not my intention which is why there is no link. It may be a simple point but fundamentally factual that if we don't send tens of Billions to the EU the UK has the option of spending that money here.

Of greater significance still is that you don't grasp you're attempting to equate a one dimensional one-way self-imposed fiscal restraint with a two-way monetary mechanism that generates far greater multi-dimensional benefit than can be represented by simple cash flow analysis.

My point, getting back to the topic of this thread, is prioritising what we choose to spend our money on. I am equating the reality of our situation. For 'far greater multi-dimensional benefit than can be represented by simple cash flow analysis' see subjective opinion.

Most significant of all, you seems unable to appreciate that it's principles that should persuade rather than "facts" or reports wheeled out to bolster your opinion or prove my points bigger than yours or blind by science or sway the easily persuaded or elicit sympathy.

Not at all, I am operating on principles relevant to the real world. Uk taxpayers money is better spent promoting the wellbeing of UK citizens in the first instance.

Again simplistic. Of course none of our national priorities could possibly coincide with EU priorities. Or that we have any elected representation in the EU. Or that we have any "bureaucratic" representation in Brussels. Or that we haven't helped shape EU policies. Or that we haven't negotiated significant opt outs. No, you're right, it's a one dimensional world, it's us and them and the EU is the big bad bogey man.

Your characterization of my viewpoint is conveniently simplistic but I haven't said any of that as you know.

Taking that at face value, happy to oblige

As you should, your range and use of vocabulary is one of the highlights of this forum.

 

[drew]

Heard on BBC news the other day, take it up with them

Don't believe you or you heard it incorrectly. Prove me wrong otherwise I'll stick with the references I quoted.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

1) Apart from a few art critics and media luvvies, no one bats an eyelid when museums and galleries are forced to charge for entry to cover costs when the government decides money can be better spent elsewhere.

Just as nobody bat an eyelid when they buy really expensive pieces.

2) There is publicly owned and publicly owned isn't there. These buildings above are open to the public all year round. On the other hand, when is it my turn to sleep at or even use Buckingham Palace? It certainly doesn't feel like much of a public asset even if a bit of paper says it is. Thus only fair that the spongers pay more than their fair share for it's maintenance.

Yeah you're missing the point. I have no love at all for the Royals and that's why they are irrelevant to the actual issue.

It's about an incredibly historical structure that needs to be updated to ensure its not a danger or hazard risk. Would you rather such historical buildings all be bulldozed and let be run down rather than preserve them?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-funding-rise-buckingham-palace-a7425446.html

The 'Royals' must piss themselves laughing as they continue to get away with this, they know no shame.

You didn't read the last paragraph of the article you linked.

 

[Tarpon]

You didn't read the last paragraph of the article you linked.

Yeah I did.
The 'Crown Estate' is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. It is not their money - it is pubic money. They're still laughing but they laugh at some of their 'subjects' more than others.

 

[CheeseRolls]

It is a pity that this has to be such a polarising debate. I am a Republican, but democratically accept the monarchy. I don't understand why there are not more pro monarchy supporters who would be in favour of a more modest royal family.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[yxee]

Yeah I did.
The 'Crown Estate' is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. It is not their money - it is pubic money. They're still laughing but they laugh at some of their 'subjects' more than others.

I don't understand what you're saying. They own it, right? The article says: "land that is owned by the royal family but cannot be sold".

I have no idea what your argument is apart from trying to confuse and obfuscate that fact.

 

[Tarpon]

I

I don't understand what you're saying. They own it, right? The article says: "land that is owned by the royal family but cannot be sold".

I have no idea what your argument is apart from trying to confuse and obfuscate that fact.

Why not read up on it yourself then? Here's an extract from the Crown Estate's own FAQs to help you along:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I

Why not read up on it yourself then? Here's an extract from the Crown Estate's own FAQs to help you along:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.

Excellent last sentence, especially the last five words.

 

[yxee]

I

Why not read up on it yourself then? Here's an extract from the Crown Estate's own FAQs to help you along:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.

I'm not asking you to copy and paste things from a website, I'm asking what on earth your point is?

That due to a technicality the money belongs to an independent organisation and therefore.... GIMME GIMME GIMME we've got poor people to feed?

The money still comes from them. It's from their earnings. You can't just take it!

 

[Chicken Run]

Fair enough, it was a bit of a semantically abstruse loss leader.



OK, let's address it. "According to one report supposed austerity savings made in the last parliament £44 Billion" along with

I dismissed it because on a minor note the report was unattributed.

Of greater significance, it's another example of myriad confirmation bias proliferated by NSC posters anxious to bolster the credibility of their viewpoint by proving it with "facts", you being one of the more ardent promulgators. Google will verify anything, any one report quoted can be refuted by another, bandying them around doesn't prove anything.

Of greater significance still is that you don't grasp you're attempting to equate a one dimensional one-way self-imposed fiscal restraint with a two-way monetary mechanism that generates far greater multi-dimensional benefit than can be represented by simple cash flow analysis.

Most significant of all, you seems unable to appreciate that it's principles that should persuade rather than "facts" or reports wheeled out to bolster your opinion or prove my points bigger than yours or blind by science or sway the easily persuaded or elicit sympathy.



Again simplistic. Of course none of our national priorities could possibly coincide with EU priorities. Or that we have any elected representation in the EU. Or that we have any "bureaucratic" representation in Brussels. Or that we haven't helped shape EU policies. Or that we haven't negotiated significant opt outs. No, you're right, it's a one dimensional world, it's us and them and the EU is the big bad bogey man.



Taking that at face value, happy to oblige

Gosh you're an intelligent Fokker aren't you!

 

[Tarpon]

I'm not asking you to copy and paste things from a website, I'm asking what on earth your point is?

That due to a technicality the money belongs to an independent organisation and therefore.... GIMME GIMME GIMME we've got poor people to feed?

The money still comes from them. It's from their earnings. You can't just take it!

I'm not sure what part of what I have already posted you could possibly fail to understand but put simply:

The surplus revenue is public money.
The amount of public money going to the Royals is increasing.
In my view they neither need or deserve it & are not value for money.
They know no shame.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm not sure what part of what I have already posted you could possibly fail to understand but put simply:

The surplus revenue is public money.
The amount of public money going to the Royals is increasing.
In my view they neither need or deserve it & are not value for money.
They know no shame.

The surplus revenue is public money because the Royals gave it to the Treasury in lieu of taxes. It was agreed with George IV, many many years ago. It works.
For those that want a trimmed down royalty, only the Queen & Prince Philip get paid.
For those who think about charity, Prince William donates his wages as an air ambulance pilot, to charity. Many charities wouldn't exist without royal patronage. The Invictus games are the latest,.