mercalia wrote:maybe but you feel less intimidated by a president than a king/queen? and as the yanks have found out you can shoot presidents, and send them to prison ( I think at the moment a former president of France is being investigated? can you imagine charley boy being sent to prison? ) President is clearly a job, being a king aint ( they tried to bring god into it with the divine right of kings, in the past )
We, and the French, found it possible to chop the head off kings. Wasn't Charles Stuart's problem to do with his belief in his divine right to rule?
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
mercalia wrote:maybe but you feel less intimidated by a president than a king/queen? and as the yanks have found out you can shoot presidents, and send them to prison ( I think at the moment a former president of France is being investigated? can you imagine charley boy being sent to prison? ) President is clearly a job, being a king aint ( they tried to bring god into it with the divine right of kings, in the past )
We, and the French, found it possible to chop the head off kings. Wasn't Charles Stuart's problem to do with his belief in his divine right to rule?
but thats a long time ago. The result is the French dont have any of this aura about their leader , a good thing.
mercalia wrote:maybe but you feel less intimidated by a president than a king/queen? and as the yanks have found out you can shoot presidents, and send them to prison ( I think at the moment a former president of France is being investigated? can you imagine charley boy being sent to prison? ) President is clearly a job, being a king aint ( they tried to bring god into it with the divine right of kings, in the past )
We, and the French, found it possible to chop the head off kings. Wasn't Charles Stuart's problem to do with his belief in his divine right to rule?
but thats a long time ago. The result is the French dont have any of this aura about their leader , a good thing.
The events of 1649 did lead to our present monarchy being constitutional though. Charley had better restrain his "spider memos". Presidents don't have to be like Trump. We could have an Irish type presidency, with presidents like Mary Robinson. Can you name the current one? He is Michael Higgins and his job is mainly ceremonial.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Psamathe wrote:I don't think he was female or injured or medically discharged. He just decided he fancied doing something else so walked-out on his contract and @£$%^&* the money the taxpayer had forked out training him.
The 'fancying doing something else' was taking on more of the traditional Royal roles because the Queen is getting on a bit. .....
Queen's age was well known before he undertook the massively expensive training at public/taxpayer expense.
But if he was unaware of that, then fine, walk out on the contract but pay the taxpayer back as per the terms of the contract he signed (of his own free will).
Cunobelin wrote: .... or female, or injured, or medically discharged, or a number of cases
I don't think he was female or injured or medically discharged. He just decided he fancied doing something else so walked-out on his contract and @£$%^&* the money the taxpayer had forked out training him.
Ian
Person 1 has one leg, does something Person 2 has 2 legs, but one arm and does the same thing
IT is called equivalence, it doesn't grow the second person an arm, or the first person an arm, buy they achieve the same outcome
There are a number of people who leave these contracts early without penalty for a number of reasons
When you undertake something and sign a contract it is reasonable to expect you to adhere to the terms of that contract. The contract had exit clauses he chose to take. This is particularly the case when large amounts of taxpayer money is involved.
Though I must confess I was unaware that other SAR pilots had left their contracts early and had also been let-off paying the contract repayment. Could you provide link to the source as I'd certainly be interested on looking into the grounds the other SAR pilots were not asked for the repayment.
Training SAR pilots is massively expensive cost to the taxpayer - hence the claw-back in the contracts. Made worse because there are not large numbers of qualified pilots so a few leaving unexpectedly could cause cover issues.
Mike Sales wrote:We could have an Irish type presidency, with presidents like Mary Robinson. Can you name the current one? He is Michael Higgins and his job is mainly ceremonial.
Has he had vast wealth poured on him (from taxpayer money)? Given loads of palaces and castles? etc.
Mike Sales wrote:We could have an Irish type presidency, with presidents like Mary Robinson. Can you name the current one? He is Michael Higgins and his job is mainly ceremonial.
Has he had vast wealth poured on him (from taxpayer money)? Given loads of palaces and castles? etc.
Mike Sales wrote:We could have an Irish type presidency, with presidents like Mary Robinson. Can you name the current one? He is Michael Higgins and his job is mainly ceremonial.
Has he had vast wealth poured on him (from taxpayer money)? Given loads of palaces and castles? etc.
Ian
Or, how much revenue does he bring into Ireland?
You raise an interesting point about any contribution by the Royals to UK tourist business. Unfortunately it seems that putting numbers on the revenue is more about one's opinions about the Royal Family than about what actually attracts tourists to the UK. Reports on the revenue gain vary between £1.16bn gain to £344m net cost. The trouble comes in estimating how many of those tourists visiting the UK would still visit if he had no Royal Family. UK would still have all the castles and palaces and country parks, nature reserves, etc., all those other tourist attractions and in practice most tourists don't get to actually see any Royals during their visit. Certainly other countries e.g. France have a pretty successful tourist industry without any Royal Family so in practice I'm completely unconvinced about the gains to tourism from our Royal Family.
There might be other benefits e.g. Ms Sparkle wears a £175 pair of jeans (from Huit) and suddenly they have a waiting list of over a month (big boost to their business but does not really help those struggling and who pay for all these palaces and castles and wealth for all these Royals).
So that is what the Windsors are for? A tourist attraction? Windsor Castle is 24th on the list of tourist attractions, behind Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and Roman Bath. The evidence for the monarchy as a tourist attraction is sketchy, though often asserted. The Windsors cost £300m+ p.a. We spend millions on the minor royals like the Kents. Let's stop paying their dole. Incidentally, to return to the forum's main purpose, Prince Michael of Kent, Presindent of the Institute of Road Safety Officers, President of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, sponsor of the Prince Michael Road Safety Awards, had four convictions for speeding and careless driving, one for overtaking at 104 mph. Hypocrisy? Princess Anne has speeding convictions too. Entitled?
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Interesting thread. Title should be changed to rarely uses rather than probably never uses because some posters on here say they've seen royals wait for standard A&E service. Out of politeness I tend to believe people when they say they've seen it fine something on here unless proven to be untrue or just plain unlikely.
Paying for royals life the Kents? Doesn't the Queen pay minor royals out of her money on exchange for a tax deal on her and other major royals income? Part of the changes made some time ago to the civil list.
It's interesting how people are quite happy making derogatory name calling comments about the younger royals. I wonder whether you're kind of closet republicans the way you use insulting names / phrases for the young royals but refrain from making similar comments about the Queen. Afterall of the younger Royals are freeloading on the country the Queen is too surely? Is there a kind of respect to the queen despite opposing what institute she's operates as (unelected head of state). You approve of the Queen but no other royal?
Mike Sales wrote:We could have an Irish type presidency, with presidents like Mary Robinson. Can you name the current one? He is Michael Higgins and his job is mainly ceremonial.
Has he had vast wealth poured on him (from taxpayer money)? Given loads of palaces and castles? etc.
Ian
Or, how much revenue does he bring into Ireland?
Is that what presidents are for? I don't think so.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Tangled Metal wrote: I wonder whether you're kind of closet republicans the way you use insulting names / phrases for the young royals but refrain from making similar comments about the Queen. Afterall of the younger Royals are freeloading on the country the Queen is too surely? Is there a kind of respect to the queen despite opposing what institute she's operates as (unelected head of state). You approve of the Queen but no other royal?
I'm no closet republican. I'm proud of it. I want to be a citizen, not a subject. What insulting names? I didn't call them a tourist attraction.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Cunobelin wrote:Almost as much truth and realism as claims about privatisation. The majority of privatisation of te NHS (PHF, Treatment Centres, award of NHS Contracs to the Private Sector) was in fact Brown and Blair
Yes, but try telling this to a Corbynite.
I’ve known royalty use the NHS and wait their turn like anyone else.
eg? the queen, phillip, one of the royal pups?
I was thinking of that comment but thought it was a bit stronger phrase. The general feel of this thread still covers my view on posters being republicans with a sneaking regard for the Queen. The criticism seems to be more for the other royals not the Queen
Tangled Metal wrote:Interesting thread. Title should be changed to rarely uses rather than probably never uses because some posters on here say they've seen royals wait for standard A&E service. Out of politeness I tend to believe people when they say they've seen it fine something on here unless proven to be untrue or just plain unlikely.
Paying for royals life the Kents? Doesn't the Queen pay minor royals out of her money on exchange for a tax deal on her and other major royals income? Part of the changes made some time ago to the civil list.
It's interesting how people are quite happy making derogatory name calling comments about the younger royals. I wonder whether you're kind of closet republicans the way you use insulting names / phrases for the young royals but refrain from making similar comments about the Queen. Afterall of the younger Royals are freeloading on the country the Queen is too surely? Is there a kind of respect to the queen despite opposing what institute she's operates as (unelected head of state). You approve of the Queen but no other royal?
have changed it.
will queen Lizzie do, of clan Windsor? rhymes with Cersei Lizzie belongs to a bygone era after WW2 when the country was recovering. But now she is an anachronism, is merely respect for a very old lady who tried to hold the country together with the loss of empire and world influence - that need has long since gone. Like Cersei she wont let go and I bet would turn the screw on any of her family if she could, would like to have them on leashes like her corgis
Last edited by mercalia on 17 May 2018, 3:45pm, edited 5 times in total.