Shameful

[Diego Napier]

Yet you are happy to see several BILLION pounds (net) every year sent to the EU ..... #selectiveoutrage

You draw a parallel between paying for the refurbishment of a building with payments to an organisation that redistributes them for the benefit of hundreds of millions of people?

A prime example of the kind of specious woolly-headed tit-for-tat flabby-brained smug riposte so often passed off on NSC as a logical rejoinder to counter an argument.

 

[heathgate]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

At a time of Brexit uncertainty and cost-cutting to health and benefit budgets, someone sees fit to spend £369m on refurbishing Buckingham Palace. It is high-time they chipped in for some of this and if they don't like it they should abdicate.

Cards on the table; I am a republican. But I really do feel that regardless of your opinions on who should be head of state, this is truly shameful. My wife volunteers at a family support charity called Welcare, and every week there are people turning up in tears, worried about not being able to pay the heating bill or being turfed out of rented accommodation. There is advice being given on how to keep warm without turning up the heating, or how to feed a family of four on ludicrously small amounts of money. Meanwhile, the biggest spongers in the country (who also happen to be the wealthiest) get looked after like this. It really is an absolute DISGRACE.

But we spend over £200 billion just on benefits for those in need.....

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[The Birdman]

How much is Royal Family worth to Britain .
It's one if this country best business.
I would not want to be a Royal but many other Countries are envious of our Royal Family.
I understand who do you think you are is going to link Danny Dyer to Royalty next week.

 

[Bwian]

Upkeep is one thing. A £369 million refurbishment is quite another. They shouldn't need to spend anything like that on just maintaining it.

There lies the problem-Liz and Phil are so fecking tight they don't maintain anything. Windsor Castle nearly destroyed because Liz was too tight to pay for a sprinkler system. Lack of maintenance on everything always leads to big bills. Let one of the richest women on the planet pay.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I understand who do you think you are is going to link Danny Dyer to Royalty next week.����

Danny Dyer -> fat philanderer -> Henry VIII (inter alia)

 

[drew]

Well I'm a royalist. They may well be unelected but they do tend to spend a lifetime preparing for the role. In a republic you don't know who you might get to be your head of state. Look across the pond. As for spending the money elsewhere, perhaps we should ensure some of the big corporate companies pay their fare share of tax and that would cover the repairs and do a hell of a lot of good for those that are homeless etc.

But no, let's get rid of the royal family and the pageantry that goes with it as I'm sure that won't affect the tourism industry at all.

 

[smeg]

Yet you are happy to see several BILLION pounds (net) every year sent to the EU ..... #selectiveoutrage

How do you feel about the 3.5 Billion being spent on Westminster? So in total the actual spend on the Buckingham Palace refurb and the Houses of Parliament will be around 4 Billion (assuming it doesn't go over budget) This strikes me as a big F U from the elite of our country in the times of austerity and I thought there had been a vote lately which confirmed the publics anger at such things?

 

[The Clamp]

I wouldn't scrap the scroungers but I'd certainly start making them pay their way. Don't tell me between them they don't have 400m for this refurb , if she thinks it's a reasonable amount to pay she should have no problem with it, she thinks it's reasonable we pay for it. Tight arsed old hag.

 

[beorhthelm]

How do you feel about the 3.5 Billion being spent on Westminster? So in total the actual spend on the Buckingham Palace refurb and the Houses of Parliament will be around 4 Billion (assuming it doesn't go over budget) This strikes me as a big F U from the elite of our country in the times of austerity and I thought there had been a vote lately which confirmed the publics anger at such things?

where do you think that money will go? its going to builders, plumbers, tradesmen, craftsman etc, and no doubt overpaid project managers and consultants. but ultimatly its going back to the economy. people call for "investment" then when some is announced the first thng they do is complain its money that could be better spent elsewhere. on the other hand, if i suggested privatising the Houses or Parliament and Buckingham palace, so that the upkeep and repair became a concern of that private company, there would be howls of derision about selling of the family silver.

 

[el punal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

At a time of Brexit uncertainty and cost-cutting to health and benefit budgets, someone sees fit to spend £369m on refurbishing Buckingham Palace. It is high-time they chipped in for some of this and if they don't like it they should abdicate.

Cards on the table; I am a republican. But I really do feel that regardless of your opinions on who should be head of state, this is truly shameful. My wife volunteers at a family support charity called Welcare, and every week there are people turning up in tears, worried about not being able to pay the heating bill or being turfed out of rented accommodation. There is advice being given on how to keep warm without turning up the heating, or how to feed a family of four on ludicrously small amounts of money. Meanwhile, the biggest spongers in the country (who also happen to be the wealthiest) get looked after like this. It really is an absolute DISGRACE.

I sort of agree with your sentiments, but equally Buck House is up there on the priority list for tourists and overseas visitors to view. And, whether you like it or not, they bring in an awful lot of revenue to the country as a whole.

 

[Diego Napier]

I sort of agree with your sentiments, but equally Buck House is up there on the priority list for tourists and overseas visitors to view. And, whether you like it or not, they bring in an awful lot of revenue to the country as a whole.

As it is a tourist attraction, I'm happy the Palace is maintained and treated in the same fashion as former royal properties like Hampton Court and the Tower however, I'm not happy with the iniquity of a family (albeit one with an intimate genealogical connection with most of Europe's current and former royalty) are feather bedded in fabulously sumptuous wealth whilst others have so little. In addition, the amount of revenue generated by the royals as opposed to their buildings is far less than is publicised and far less than they cost.

 

[The Clamp]

As it is a tourist attraction, I'm happy the Palace is maintained and treated in the same fashion as former royal properties like Hampton Court and the Tower however, I'm not happy with the iniquity of a family (albeit one with an intimate genealogical connection with most of Europe's current and former royalty) are feather bedded in fabulously sumptuous wealth whilst others have so little. In addition, the amount of revenue generated by the royals as opposed to their buildings is far less than is publicised and far less than they cost.

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?

 

[smeg]

where do you think that money will go? its going to builders, plumbers, tradesmen, craftsman etc, and no doubt overpaid project managers and consultants. but ultimatly its going back to the economy. people call for "investment" then when some is announced the first thng they do is complain its money that could be better spent elsewhere. on the other hand, if i suggested privatising the Houses or Parliament and Buckingham palace, so that the upkeep and repair became a concern of that private company, there would be howls of derision about selling of the family silver.

I'm not suggesting selling up but maybe do some research on this matter, about ten years ago an independent review of Buckingham Palace confirmed the conditions as unsatisfactory and recommended the Queen opened up to the public more often or used the 100 million she had been left by her mum to do the work, obviously she didn't approve of either option. Now down the line the repair bill has multiplied four fold and could have been resolved a lot earlier. Good for builders and craftsmen yes but i'm not trying to stop the work, just questioning how it has come to this, surely the monarchy could have drummed up the money themselves or is it just the elite taking advantage of us again?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You draw a parallel between paying for the refurbishment of a building with payments to an organisation that redistributes them for the benefit of hundreds of millions of people?

A prime example of the kind of specious woolly-headed tit-for-tat flabby-brained smug riposte so often passed off on NSC as a logical rejoinder to counter an argument.

The OP seemed outraged about our spending priorities especially in the light of austerity cuts. According to one report supposed austerity savings made in the last parliament £44 Billion. The ONS say UK taxpayers money (net) sent to the EU over the same period £35 Billion +.

Is it really a 'Specious woolly-headed tit-for-tat flabby-brained smug riposte' to point out Our EU membership fee could have been better spent on this countries millions?

Actually don't answer that ....

 

[el punal]

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?

Get yourself knighted, that should sort out an entry ticket.

 

[Diego Napier]

The OP seemed outraged about our spending priorities especially in the light of austerity cuts.

You presume his outrage is heightened by the additional austerity hardship many are forced to endure, I assume his sympathies were already aroused.

According to one report supposed austerity savings made in the last parliament £44 Billion. The ONS say UK taxpayers money (net) sent to the EU over the same period £35 Billion +.

Leaving aside the emboldened specious confirmation bias, you're at it again comparing on one hand the vaguest of suggestions and on the other an apparently wilfull misrepresentation of how money flows to and from Brussels and the benefits derived. Apples & Pears.

Is it really a 'Specious woolly-headed tit-for-tat flabby-brained smug riposte' to point out Our EU membership fee could have been better spent on this countries millions?

Better spent how? Better tax breaks for the well off? Greater incentives for renewable energy? Better training and reward for social care workers? More Nuclear weapons? Adequate provision for mental health? More investment in the failing rail infrastructure or HS1/2/3? Increased border control? More support for scientific research? Provision of sufficient new housing stock? Adequate education and training of tomorrow's workforce? etc..

Anyway, the short answer is to your question is Yes, with an added simplistic and illogical and then See Above.

Actually don't answer that ....

Oh! Too late. Or are you implying the penny has dropped?

 

[essbee]

I reckon we should get Del Boy and Rodney to do the re-fit. We might lose some chandeliers
in the process - but think of the comedy value we could get out of it at the end.

 

[Eggmundo]

Let's have a referendum on it.

 

[lawros left foot]

Well I'm a royalist. They may well be unelected but they do tend to spend a lifetime preparing for the role. In a republic you don't know who you might get to be your head of state. Look across the pond. As for spending the money elsewhere, perhaps we should ensure some of the big corporate companies pay their fare share of tax and that would cover the repairs and do a hell of a lot of good for those that are homeless etc.

But no, let's get rid of the royal family and the pageantry that goes with it as I'm sure that won't affect the tourism industry at all.

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.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You presume his outrage is heightened by the additional austerity hardship many are forced to endure, I assume his sympathies were already aroused.

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

Leaving aside the emboldened specious confirmation bias, you're at it again comparing on one hand the vaguest of suggestions and on the other an apparently wilfull misrepresentation of how money flows to and from Brussels and the benefits derived. Apples & Pears.

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

Better spent how? Better tax breaks for the well off? Greater incentives for renewable energy? Better training and reward for social care workers? More Nuclear weapons? Adequate provision for mental health? More investment in the failing rail infrastructure or HS1/2/3? Increased border control? More support for scientific research? Provision of sufficient new housing stock? Adequate education and training of tomorrow's workforce? etc..

Anyway, the short answer is to your question is Yes, with an added simplistic and illogical and then See Above.

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

Oh! Too late. Or are you implying the penny has dropped?

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