The Royal Wedding

fogfog
edited May 2011 in Chit chat
thought I might as well.. as Mel likes em so much ;)

Kate's sister scrubbed up well

and Miles fav Elton was there :lol:
Post edited by fog on
«134567

Comments

  • edited April 2011
    Is that all you're going to say about it? :-o
  • fogfog
    edited April 2011
    wasn't invited, they could have sent a car.. I'm only down the road.. so I'm snubbing it in part ;)

    I'm sure you can make better comments (or just wind up mel being a royalist.hehe)
  • edited April 2011
    Who are you that you should be invited?
  • edited April 2011
    What wedding?
  • fogfog
    edited April 2011
    ghbearman wrote: »
    Who are you that you should be invited?

    no one, lighten up.. it was a joke ;)
  • edited April 2011
    ghbearman wrote: »
    Is that all you're going to say about it? :-o

    its far more than im gonna say about it :P
    Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
  • edited April 2011
    I wonder if all the areas that have had their coppers borrowed for the wedding and street party security will see a massive rise in crime today?

    I know if I was a hardcore crim I'd take full advantage of the situation, to the next level! :D
    Every night is curry night!
  • edited April 2011
    I wonder if all the areas that have had their coppers borrowed for the wedding and street party security will see a massive rise in crime today?

    I know if I was a hardcore crim I'd take full advantage of the situation, to the next level! :D


    What do you mean 'If I was..'??
  • edited April 2011
    ghbearman wrote: »
    Who are you that you should be invited?

    He's the one paying for the wedding. Or rather he's one of the millions who are paying. At a time when our already (sometimes grossly) underfunded public services are being cut all over the place we can somehow afford to pay an obscene amount just for two young people to get married. And the Royal family are so stnking rich anyway that they could pay for it themselves, but no... So what if we can't afford body armour for our soldiers abroad, and so what is old people can't afford to heat their homes in the winter, and so what if we have homeless people, victims of crime with no support, people having vital operations delayed by months, as long as the Royal family are OK then all of us common people are happy.

    After all, we're just peasants in their eyes.

    And this country is supposed to be a democracy, where everyone is equal.

    Sickening.
  • edited April 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    What do you mean 'If I was..'??

    I'm retired now ;)
    Every night is curry night!
  • edited April 2011
    ewgf wrote: »
    He's the one paying for the wedding. Or rather he's one of the millions who are paying. At a time when our already (sometimes grossly) underfunded public services are being cut all over the place we can somehow afford to pay an obscene amount just for two young people to get married. And the Royal family are so stnking rich anyway that they could pay for it themselves, but no... So what if we can't afford body armour for our soldiers abroad, and so what is old people can't afford to heat their homes in the winter, and so what if we have homeless people, victims of crime with no support, people having vital operations delayed by months, as long as the Royal family are OK then all of us common people are happy.

    After all, we're just peasants in their eyes.

    And this country is supposed to be a democracy, where everyone is equal.

    Sickening.

    You know the wedding is estimated to bring 600 million quid into the British economy? Sounds like a good investment to me.

    I thought Charles put up a lot of his own money for it too, was that not the case?
  • edited April 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    You know the wedding is estimated to bring 600 million quid into the British economy? Sounds like a good investment to me.

    I thought Charles put up a lot of his own money for it too, was that not the case?

    Now how the hell can anybody work that out?
  • edited April 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    I thought Charles put up a lot of his own money for it too, was that not the case?

    Yep, that's what I've heard too...
  • edited April 2011
    Modge wrote: »
    Now how the hell can anybody work that out?

    Same way they forecast consumer sales/quarterly earnings etc. Market/trend/economy. The stock market runs partly based on forecasts.

    Even if those forecasts are 50% off...it's still a winning deal for the British economy.
  • edited April 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    Same way they forecast consumer sales/quarterly earnings etc. Market/trend/economy. The stock market runs partly based on forecasts.

    Even if those forecasts are 50% off...it's still a winning deal for the British economy.

    Would be more IF they payed all the bill themselves considering everyday were all told the country has no money.
  • edited April 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    Even if those forecasts are 50% off...it's still a winning deal for the British economy.

    Exactly. Simple as that :)
  • edited April 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    You know the wedding is estimated to bring 600 million quid into the British economy? Sounds like a good investment to me.

    I thought Charles put up a lot of his own money for it too, was that not the case?


    Modge wrote: »
    Now how the hell can anybody work that out?

    Yep. Just because official figures are released, doesn't make them in any way necessarily true. And even if it is true, and I'm not saying it's not, we (the public) won't benefit from the cash. It'll mostly go into bonuses for the top bosses, who put together don't do the work of one employee at the bottom of their business, but who get paid literally a hundred or more times as much as that cleaner/driver/security guard.

    And how do we know if it's true about Charles? He's hardly a model of virtue or integrity is he? He goes fox hunting, he cheated on his wife with his friend's wife, he preaches about savign the environment and they jets all over the world in his private planes. If he's so generous with his money then why do we never hear confirmation of it from any charities?

    And speaking of his money, he gets most of it from rent paid by the working class. He owns a lot of land, and he inherited it because his ancestors claimed the land for their own, and then made people pay to live there. How is that fair? There's sixty odd million of us living on this island, why should most of us have to pay money to a (very very very) few just so we can be allowed to live on this island. Charles was born on this island, as were so many of us. The island existed long before him, and will exist long after him, same as with us all. So why should he be regarded as owning any of it, as opposed to, say, me, or Mel, or even some bloke I went to school with?

    You can't own land, either morally or intellectually. You can own it legally, and that was only made law so that the peasants would have to pay 'tribute' (cash, food, cattle, whatever the 'lord' of the land demanded) to live there.
  • edited April 2011
    ewgf wrote: »
    Yep. Just because official figures are released, doesn't make them in any way necessarily true. And even if it is true, and I'm not saying it's not, we (the public) won't benefit from the cash.

    Rubbish.....the estimates are $200 million into RETAIL alone....retail = wages/jobs.

    I bought a mug for someone here (who wanted one) for $24....that went into the pocket of the seller.

    There were an additional 600,000 visitors to London for the wedding week...that's a lot of moola right there alone going into the hands of retail/hotel/restaurants etc etc...real people real money real jobs.
    And how do we know if it's true about Charles? He's hardly a model of virtue or integrity is he?

    How do we know it's not...even if the taxpayer pays 100%..it's still a money maker.


    And speaking of his money, he gets most of it from rent paid by the working class.

    So? Do you think they should live rent free????
    You can't own land, either morally or intellectually. You can own it legally, and that was only made law so that the peasants would have to pay 'tribute' (cash, food, cattle, whatever the 'lord' of the land demanded) to live there.

    Well only the legal ownership matters :)

    I think you are letting your feelings on the royal family influence the FACT they bring more money into the economy than they cost.

    They are a business and a successful one at that..would be a bit stupid to get rid of a revenue earning business that EVERYONE (not just the top dogs) benefits from. All the little tourist stores and memorabilia sellers are not multimillionaires you know.
  • edited April 2011
    In years to come, if the question comes up "Where were you when Wills and Kate got married?" I can proudly say, with my hand on my heart, that I was letting my pal's dug oot fur a pish.
  • edited April 2011
    You dont have to get rid of them. Just STOP giving the Royal family that also includes cousins millions of pounds every year. Yes they help bring in money to the country considering the main income the last few years is tourism. Keep the Royal family but they should be self supporting like millions of others here.And dont start talking about the unemployed spongers because that has nothing to do with it.
  • edited April 2011
    I didn't catch the figures but they were saying on Sky a lot of money has come from selling oversea's TV rights ect, and I heard someone day they had to bid on prime locations -

    don't know how true that is, if we have any tv type insiders here they may know :)
  • edited April 2011
    Modge wrote: »
    You dont have to get rid of them. Just STOP giving the Royal family that also includes cousins millions of pounds every year. Yes they help bring in money to the country considering the main income the last few years is tourism. Keep the Royal family but they should be self supporting like millions of others here.And dont start talking about the unemployed spongers because that has nothing to do with it.

    They are self supporting......is that so difficult to comprehend?

    They directly generate more cash than they cost....it's a job they make money..they get paid. Just like the post man gets paid by the tax payer too

    The difference is they put more money into the country than they take!.

    Do you go to work for free?

    How about this then.....Tax payer stop giving them money and they get to keep all the money they generate....fair? :lol: (you'd be yelling a lot louder then!)
  • edited April 2011
    beanz wrote: »
    They are self supporting......is that so difficult to comprehend?

    They directly generate more cash than they cost....it's a job they make money.

    Do you go to work for free?

    They are NOT self supporting they are given millions of tax payers money every year. Look it up and see.
    And what work do they do? cut a few ribbons now and again :lol:
  • edited April 2011
    economy or not, will we see any of the money? prolly not

    will taxes still rise? yes
    will prices still rise?
    will wages drop or stick? yes
    will benefits get cut or stick? yes
    will services get slashed? yes
    will budgets get slashed? yes
    will people still lose their jobs? yes
    will people get even more into debt? yes
    will people lose their homes and businesses? yes

    but thats ok cos the richer are ok
    but thats ok weve got millions we can spend on one families security for their wedding
    but thats ok we've got 600.000 a pop to spend on missiles to fire in Libya

    remember we're in this together

    **** em
    Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
  • edited April 2011
    Modge wrote: »
    They are NOT self supporting they are given millions of tax payers money every year. Look it up and see.
    And what work do they do? cut a few ribbons now and again :lol:

    Wow, it's really simple.

    Lets break it down

    If you have a fund raiser and MY presence there generates $1000, and without my presence you'd have only generated $100.

    Would it be worth your while to pay me $200 to attend???
  • edited April 2011
    If you can be bothered look up the civil list. Then tell me they dont receive any money.
  • edited April 2011
    Modge wrote: »
    If you can be bothered look up the civil list. Then tell me they dont receive any money.

    Huh?? of course they receive money! as you do if you work a job. Should we stop paying all civil servants too then, stop paying the guys building roads?

    The point is they EARN it by generating MORE than they receive, it's not a hand out its a profit share.... its pretty basic math! I'd suggest you go look up how much the directly bring to the economy vs how much they cost the tax payer.

    ..clue, they generate more....

    It's like top sports stars getting paid millions....they get paid millions because they generate millions.....If you were responsible for bringing $600 million in profits...would you be happy if your weekly wage was $200?.....
  • edited April 2011
    Well, I liked the service.
  • edited April 2011
    Modge wrote: »
    You dont have to get rid of them. Just STOP giving the Royal family that also includes cousins millions of pounds every year. Yes they help bring in money to the country considering the main income the last few years is tourism. Keep the Royal family but they should be self supporting like millions of others here.And dont start talking about the unemployed spongers because that has nothing to do with it.

    i thought it only they only cost us 62p each every year?

    ok so that is an ammount at the end of the day, but as a civil servant, ive been given a free days holiday. so its pretty win win for me considering i have got a days wage for doing **** all.
  • edited April 2011
    Modge, I looked it up just for you..they cost about 40 million pounds a year (the one I found was for 2008 ).

    RETAIL sales JUST from the 1.1 million tourists who were in London for the wedding are estimated at 50 million pounds.

    That's just ONE day and they have more than paid for themselves.

    The long term revenue is as I said estimated at 600 mil....they are good for the next decade and a half thanks to 1 day.
Sign In or Register to comment.