Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: Afghan Dave on November 16, 2010, 01:26:49 PM
-
As this is a predominantly British board, let me apologise to any international readers.
Just in time for the cuts, job losses and unprecedented austerity we have to fight though... we get this.
WHOOP-DE-DO.... :x
-
Doesn't bother me, all the best to 'em.
We might even get a day off with a bit of luck.
-
Social unrest, redundancy, austerity, a Royal wedding... its the '80s all over again. Time really is cyclic :P
-
as long as they pay for it all with their own vast fortunes... oh wait!
-
if the money spent brings in more money via tourism then it's money well spent
-
I wonder what percentage of "tourism money" actually filters back into the hands of the population?
For example, I wonder how many big companies that owe millions in taxes will benefit, who will obviously not pay the taxes on.
I saw Cameron saying it was a piece of much needed "unadulterated good news" which seems slightly optimistic given that people are already pointing out this tax issue. In comparison to previous royal weddings I imagine it will cost less. I'd just like to see some kind of breakdown on where money from tourism goes and how it filters down to benefit everything that will be getting totally screwed over in 2011.
oh. I saw something else saying that the royal family deserve a big wedding celebration because they do more for the country that MOST of the population... hmmm. I'd like to see evidence of that too.
-
The Queen is a bright woman, the wedding will be tiny compared with Charles and Diana's certainly, bearing in mind the Queen has previously tightened the belt of the Royal Family significantly and massacred the Civil List when questions have been raised about the cost of the monarchy.
On the subject of the Royals doing more for the country than most of the population, well for the most part they do. The Queen is the head of state, and carries out all the functions of one, she doesn't just go around the world on holidays all the time, she is actually working. Others on the civil list generally act as ambassadors and representatives of the nation, too, since the aforementioned cull they've been forced to by the Queen. Hard taskmaster, her.
Note I'm a long, long way from being a Monarchist, but I think people are quick to deride them when the alternative to our Constitutional Monarch would be a Political President (which most studies affirm would be more expensive). And nobody with any sense at all wants a political head of state.
EDIT: Spelling.
-
Oh my god. I think I might agree completely with nfe :o
-
They might want a band at the wedding-I'm on it lads and will let you know.
Actually I wish them well, just as I would any other young couple. I also think nfe said it well. Maybe his band should bid for the royal knees -up.
-
Pardon me if I don't tug my forelock...
We have the historic Palaces and a current Monarch + an heir and a spare - all we need constitutionally & to satisfy tourists.
The rest (Andrew downward) can get real jobs.. and pay for their own Royal protection if they feel they need it.
Zara and Peter seem to survive OK!
-
i thought within what I was reading... the "more than most" comment was aimed at saying most of the population are benefit cheats. which I disagree with.
No doubt the queen is busy, but the British tax payer (in the past) has not only funded state business.
I agree about the wedding. I think William is pretty on the ball too, and will have his eye one some low key do.
I wan't to see Harry do a drunken, offensive best man speech. A bit like steve buscemi in the wedding singer.
-
I was fairly anti-monarchy when I was younger, but I can't be arsed with that now.
Looking at them on TV yesterday, they seem like a nice couple.
And we might get a day off...
And I'm also looking forward to Harry making an arse of himself during the speech.
And I think that we should all take a vote on just who is suprised by NFE's comments...
:)
-
And I think that we should all take a vote on just who is suprised by NFE's comments...
I certainly was, but I agree with every word.
-
I don't agree with the monarchy at all - send them all the way of Charles I.....
Nor, in a Republic, do you need a monarchical 'head of state' with powers to replace our relatively republican monarch (i.e. she wields less power than a modern president, or the stadhouder of the old Dutch republic or the old Doge of Venice)- Indeed, in reality we have a presidential head of state - the Prime Minister. A second English Republic could be achieved with a written constitution and a constitutional court to keep elected politicians in order.
-
Good luck to them, but keep the cr@p off my television!! :lol:
I'll happily watch the wedding and the parade etc... sh1t, now I live within tube distance, I might even show up on The Mall myself... but everywhere I turned last night there were "knowledgable" media-fairies and various unknown pillocks spewing forth a load of "facts" and "insight". Half of them seem to have written books that they can finally get to market... "Princess This", "Princess That", "Princess on the Toilet", etc, etc...
But yeah, they do look a good couple.
Big mistake using his mother's ring though - the whole thing's banjaxed now :lol:
And, er, add me to the "I agree with nfe" list!
-
Getting sick of it on the telly too as I really couldn't give a toss one way or another.
Wonder how long it'll take them to bump this one off PDT_038
-
Echo Tonemonkey - could not care less either way - just stop hogging all the TV and newspaper coverage
-
I'd rather this banal story (I'm really a royalist at heart) than some other banal story about some Britain's Got X-factor cretin humping some girly-mouthed boy band gimp or other.
-
I don't agree with the monarchy at all - send them all the way of Charles I.....
Nor, in a Republic, do you need a monarchical 'head of state' with powers to replace our relatively republican monarch (i.e. she wields less power than a modern president, or the stadhouder of the old Dutch republic or the old Doge of Venice)- Indeed, in reality we have a presidential head of state - the Prime Minister. A second English Republic could be achieved with a written constitution and a constitutional court to keep elected politicians in order.
In many regards the Prime Minister does act in the fashion a president would, yes. This is far more of a concern to the UK than the monarchy ever will be, and is a monstrous abuse of our Parliamentary system that people should be striving to change.
You do require a head of state, there's no two ways about it, and they should wherever possible be apolitical, which is why a Prime Minister should not act as it, and why an elected President is almost without exception a bad thing. We are in desperate need of a return to true "first among equals" Prime Ministers and genuine cabinet rule.
I'll note again that I'm not pro-monarchy in any fashion, but I know of no demonstrably better system.
-
I'd rather this banal story (I'm really a royalist at heart) than some other banal story about some Britain's Got X-factor cretin humping some girly-mouthed boy band gimp or other.
+1 lots of times.
Guitars we don't agree on but we do on this.
-
OK, that's two nfe posts in-a-row I agree with... what's going on :? :lol:
-
I know I'm a pretty pig-headed overt leftist, but surely everything I say can't be so contentious as to cause this much surprise folks agree with me :P
-
:lol:
I even have to admit to agreeing with Roo in this one... it's just that I can usually avoid the x-factor/etc bullsh1t - there was an hour or so last night when I couldn't get away from Wills and wotsername... (actually it was Piers and a bunch of other low-lifes, not Wills and his babe)...
I suppose I could've switched the TV off and practiced some mean and manly pickin' on me tele... but sadly, the wife was actually interested in it. She did agree though that they'd better not go this bonkers for the entire length of the engagement...
-
Good luck to them. The country could do with something like this to give us a lift.
-
I was in W H Smith today and they had a magazine on sale called "Will & Kate"- how sad is that?
-
^ There's a book too I think. How the hell do they write them so quick...
Couldn't care less about the whole thing, I probably won't even get the day off because in the real world you don't get a day off work just because some one you don't know that has a lot of money is getting married.
-
I was in W H Smith today and they had a magazine on sale called "Will & Kate"- how sad is that?
It's only sad cos you've still got your "Charles and Diana" magazines in the attic and your subconscious is putting two and two together :lol:
^ There's a book too I think. How the hell do they write them so quick...
Couldn't care less about the whole thing, I probably won't even get the day off because in the real world you don't get a day off work just because some one you don't know that has a lot of money is getting married.
When I watched the tv on the night it was announced, it looked to me as if a lot of savvy media types already had their books written and deals signed...
On the day off front - it's a bank holiday. So, unless you work in a job where you regularly have to work bank holidays, you should be ok.
However, the appearance of this extra bank holiday is creating havoc at our place. A load of people are suddenly thinking "I can get 11 days off work for only 3 days of my annual leave...", so there's an unusual rush for booking annual leave for that week. Which means, since this joyous anouncement, those of us who were originally planning Easter off anyway might not be allowed to take the one or two weeks we were planning...
Thanks a f***ing bunch Will & Kate... or whatever w@nker decided to declare a bank holiday! :lol:
-
I was also going to take advantage of the extra bank holiday.
until i realised we cant book annual leave for the next tax year until 1st of April.
And i doubt ill get a chance unless i get in super early.
As we're only allowed 5 people off per team of 60 which is annoying
-
I was also going to take advantage of the extra bank holiday.
until i realised we cant book annual leave for the next tax year until 1st of April.
And i doubt ill get a chance unless i get in super early.
As we're only allowed 5 people off per team of 60 which is annoying
Typcially, I'd already booked this date off work before they announced it :roll:
-
^ There's a book too I think. How the hell do they write them so quick...
Couldn't care less about the whole thing, I probably won't even get the day off because in the real world you don't get a day off work just because some one you don't know that has a lot of money is getting married.
the royal family is just another business
-
I don't care. Certainly not going to watch the coverage.
But the appearance of wedding Nazis left right and centre is a little disconcerting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/bishop-pete-broadbent-suspended-royal-wedding
I know sympathy for vicars may not be forthcoming from all quarters, but still. Indefinitely suspended for describing the event as being surrounded by "nauseating tosh"? Harsh. Especially seeing as it is surrounded by nauseating tosh.
There was also a labour MP forced to grovel because he described the royal family as "parasites"- cruel but not unjustified.
Personally, with regards to the monarchy, I agree with nick nfe