Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 21    Average: 2.6/5]
77 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 15526
Rating: 2.6
Category: Entertainment
Date: 07/30/12 05:32 PM

77 Responses to Just What Does The Royal Family Cost The UK?

  1. Profile photo of OcelotUK
    OcelotUK Male 18-29
    85 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    Link: Just What Does The Royal Family Cost The UK? - A brief look into what the Royal Family costs the average UK tax payer since all eyes are focused on England this month.
  2. Profile photo of thelonious
    thelonious Male 40-49
    3278 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    So the royal family has tons of land to get rent from because they keep inheriting it? That`s how I kinda figured it worked. So who was all this land stolen from in the first place?
  3. Profile photo of DaLau
    DaLau Male 30-39
    4 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 6:44 pm
    I had to log in just to reply to thelonius, here goes:

    really? which was a country in 1600? where did the States` land come from? was it freely given to to `muricans?

    also that gif of the queen flipping me off got funnier and funnier as the video went on.
  4. Profile photo of blastaof
    blastaof Male 18-29
    21 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 6:52 pm
    "So who was all this land stolen from in the first place?"

    Exactly. Is this guy really that stupid?
  5. Profile photo of MechBFP
    MechBFP Male 18-29
    813 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 6:56 pm
    Good video. Owned bitches.
  6. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    @thelonious

    If you can identify the descendants of the rightful original owners of the land, I`m sure the Royal family will be very happy to hand the land back to them...

    ...right about the same time you hand back the land beneath your feet to the native American tribes who once lived on it.

    Glass houses, stones, and all that.
  7. Profile photo of lawndartsftw
    lawndartsftw Male 40-49
    1811 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    God Save The Queen !!!
  8. Profile photo of Bremir
    Bremir Male 18-29
    392 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 7:38 pm
    It`s funny, because whenever there`s a video about this subject, it`s always made by an American.

    Maybe Americans should start looking a little closer to home, looking at how pathetic their Presidential candidates actually are. The Royal family actually has nothing to do with America, or Americans. So I`d love to know why they feel they have the moral high ground, and make moronic videos like this.

    The number of times Americans make these videos, and I just have to stop and ask myself "why?". It has nothing to do with you any of you. Although it still makes me laugh you went independant for various reasons, one being not wanting to pay taxes. Oh, that`s right. You still pay taxes. That worked out well, didn`t it?

    And thelonious, really? You weren`t the first people living on that continent. You`ve got no room to talk.
  9. Profile photo of trickroom
    trickroom Male 18-29
    286 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 8:01 pm
    this was posted for the Royal Wedding as well
  10. Profile photo of Smutleybutt
    Smutleybutt Male 18-29
    1377 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 8:08 pm
    Repost
  11. Profile photo of Sistarose
    Sistarose Female 30-39
    373 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 8:08 pm
    Bremic- cppgrey is his you tube name. He also did that video that got posted recently about the secret history of the City of London. From what I worked out he is an American living in the UK, thus his interest in UK history and politics. Personally I like his videos, as they are fun and informative.
  12. Profile photo of Baelzar
    Baelzar Male 40-49
    1399 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    40 million pounds? A PITTANCE compared to what our royal families cost us...
  13. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    I know right Bael?

    The Obama`s have rang up over $200 million in taxpayer expenses since they took office.

    His salary is $400,000.
  14. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 8:37 pm
    I`m never going to Great Britain.I heard they keep razors in their socks!!!
  15. Profile photo of burbclaver
    burbclaver Male 50-59
    878 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 8:47 pm
    Does this count the billions in lost GDP from everyone taking two days holiday to celebrate the jubilee? When she dies, why not thank her for her service and get rid of this anachronistic system?
  16. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 9:42 pm
    They`re basically costume characters in a tourist attraction that makes $billions for the country.
  17. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 9:48 pm
    Bremir, I`ve never heard of any Americans making a video like this before. Moreover, this particular American lives in Great Britain.

    And Europeans were the ones who colonized the new world, not Americans. We are native to this land.

    Regardless, there were only 4 million Native Americans in all of the US and Canada before Europeans came. 80-90% died of disease. The rest were assimilated into the population. I think you have to realize how much empty space there was. The prospect of empty land (it was virtually all empty) was irresistible to poor, starving Europeans. That`s what happened.

    And this process happened in other countries, even in Europe, too. You think Hungarians come from Hungary? Turks from Turkey? The English from England? French from France? No, they all invaded and took the land from the previous occupiers. It`s the story of human history. It`s nothing that unique.
  18. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 9:51 pm
    In case you guys don`t know: both Hungarians and Turks came from the Steppe in Asia. The English came from Germany and Denmark, the reason England speaks a Germanic Language. And the French come from the Franks, a Germanic tribe that wiped out the Romans there.

    There are numerous other examples.
  19. Profile photo of den3jlb
    den3jlb Male 18-29
    364 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    "I`m never going to Great Britain.I heard they keep razors in their socks!!!"

    Im never going to the US. I heard they keep Uzis in their underpants!!!
  20. Profile photo of den3jlb
    den3jlb Male 18-29
    364 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 10:43 pm
    @Andrew155 - spot on. Which makes the ignorant anti-Israel brigade hillariously hypocritical
  21. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm



    Gee wiz people, leave the most noble House of Windsor alone. As you can see this Olympics is hard enough for them as it is ;-)

    But seriously, the only real bugaboo I have with any of them is Charles` unforgivable, all around douchebaggery (Lady Di). Can I get an Amen from the choir!?
  22. Profile photo of boogarcym
    boogarcym Male 40-49
    316 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 11:25 pm
    The Royal Family do not pay inheritance tax. If they did they would not still own all this land
  23. Profile photo of xelous
    xelous Male 18-29
    2513 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 11:31 pm
    The Olympics are great.

    Never mind the gaffes and the competitions are as wonderful as always.

    Good job London, next time don`t loose the keys to the stadium though >.<
  24. Profile photo of Slotherder
    Slotherder Male 30-39
    251 posts
    July 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm
    The whole "no taxes" thing was just a rallying cry, one which is still used today due to its effectiveness. Everyone in gov`t knows (and knew back then) that taxes are a necessity for gov`t to operate, though conservatives at least acknowledge it`s a horrible necessity. It was more specifically taxation without representation and the outright abuse of colonial people and resources that caused the revolution. Even with all that, most noted colonials still considered themselves to be English, and would have preferred not to have to go to such lengths to be accorded the same liberties as the non-colonial English enjoyed.
  25. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 12:21 am
    Diana was a wet hen- hard to see how she could have had less backbone while remaining a vertebrate. Read too many of her step-grandmothers books maybe.... Camilla is ( and probably always was) and much better bet.
  26. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36176 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 12:32 am

    Old ladies always look a bit grumpy.
    She`s not and stop picking on her.
    The video was good except she doesn`t drink gin straight, that was the Queen Mother who poured gin stright out of her teapot into very fine china tea cups. Not Her Maj drinks a Dubonnet roostertail {2 parts dubonnet to 1 part gin, lemon slice & 4 ice cubes hand selected to be the perfect shape}
  27. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 12:41 am
    "Old ladies always look a bit grumpy.
    She`s not and stop picking on her."

    Sure thing, Mr. Chris Crocker.
  28. Profile photo of Adcro
    Adcro Male 18-29
    369 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 12:53 am
    The Queen`s not grumpy. She once said that she doesn`t smile loads because if she smiled all the time for everyone, her face would ache, and indeed it often did when she tried to smile all the time like people want.

    The Olympics thing was like 3 hours long, should she, as an 86 year old great grandmother, sat out in the cold in one spot for 3 hours late at night, and randomly focussed on throughout by various people, have to smile the whole time? She`d probably rather be at home watching it on TV with a cup of tea and a corgi in her lap!

    She does a HELL of a lot for an old lady her age, and does stuff every single day. Just look at the Royal Flotilla... she had to stand on a boat in the rain for 4 hours to watch a bunch of ships go past. She probably didn`t want to be there!

    Same with the Jubilee concert! Late night, cold, wet, music she`s never heard of for hours and hours, AND her husband was in hospital at the time, but she was still there!
  29. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 1:00 am
    @burbclaver

    "Does this count the billions in lost GDP from everyone taking two days holiday to celebrate the jubilee?"

    Money in your pocket doesn`t mean much if you have no time off to spend it, does it?

    @Andrew155

    "And Europeans were the ones who colonized the new world, not Americans. We are native to this land."

    Correct. You just inherited it. Juuuuust the same way the Royal familiy inherited their land.

    Which is exactly my point. Why should either of you be forced to hand back something you innocently inherited?
  30. Profile photo of Squidbush
    Squidbush Male 40-49
    710 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 1:58 am
    "Im never going to the US. I heard they keep Uzis in their underpants!!!"

    So THAT`s what that loud report and burning sensation was when I sat down.
  31. Profile photo of fuzzysheep
    fuzzysheep Male 18-29
    187 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 2:33 am
    £40M is nothing like what they really cost us, that is the figure published which doesn`t include the cost of their security which are somewhere in the region of £100M, it`s by far their biggest expense.

    Re. the tourism thing, I can`t believe he implied that the royal family were responsible for all of the tourist money coming into the country. People bloody love castles, queen or not. I don`t think tourism would affected much at all if we stopped paying for the royals.

    The royal wedding cost £20m to put on and the extra bank holiday has been calculated to have cost the bristish economy £5Bn in lost growth.

    The idea that they still deserve this pay because they technically still own all this land is crap, their ancestors were dictators who took that land from the people of the UK unjustly. Could Uday Hussein claim that all the palaces his dad built are rightfully his and charge rent for their usage?
  32. Profile photo of bataleon27
    bataleon27 Male 18-29
    1178 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 3:54 am
    @fuzzysheep re- "Re. the tourism thing, I can`t believe he implied that the royal family were responsible for all of the tourist money coming into the country. People bloody love castles, queen or not. I don`t think tourism would affected much at all if we stopped paying for the royals. "

    Wilst I agree that not all London`s tourist attractions are derived from the royal family, you are a fool to say that tourism would hardly be affected. The royal family are at the heart of so much of the desire to visit the Capital, the palace, to buy the crappy trinkets with the queens face on. Sure, we would still get a lot of revenue from tourism, but the royal family indirectly contribute to a huge proportion of this.
  33. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 4:16 am
    At least she`s cost less than Dubya or Bazza
  34. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 4:18 am
    From what we read in the press recently, it appears to me that we have far better value from our head of state than the US. For example take Mitt Romney; How can the US afford to start another bunch of wars caused by diplomatic goofs and blunders? Still a prospective candidate though. Look at the Flack Barak Obama gets on a regular day to day basis.
    The Queen is our `token` ruler / head of state. It is the government that runs the country.
    Anyone with a smattering of intelligence and the ability to carry out basic maths knows the national income the royal family generates.
    A percentage of the population are unable to grasp this concept of `investment to earn`. They think the world owes them a loving. In the UK they are the people who earn the same wage as you; they spend it on smoking, booze and holidays while you are carefully saving for a rainy day. When broke, they demand a share of you savings, calling you the rich and privileged upper-class.
  35. Profile photo of fuzzysheep
    fuzzysheep Male 18-29
    187 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 4:20 am
    Bataleon my wording was thus: "I don`t think tourism would affected much at all if we stopped paying for the royals". They`re not going to disappear, people can still buy mugs with the queens face on. I`m not proposing executing them, just cutting their government funding. They can keep calling themselves the royal family and living in their castles but do it off their own back. They have business interests and large bank accounts, they will be fine.
  36. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 5:31 am
    So the royal family has tons of land to get rent from because they keep inheriting it? That`s how I kinda figured it worked. So who was all this land stolen from in the first place?

    The Anglo-Saxon kings, who stole it from the Norse kings, who stole it from the Anglo-Saxon kings, who stole it from unknown rulers after the collapse of the Roman empire left the province of Britannia fragmented, who stole it from the Roman empire, who stole some of it from various British tribal monarchs and inherited the rest from other British tribal monarchs, who stole it from unknown tribal leaders in prehistory (the earliest Roman records state that oral British history at the time recorded multiple conquests from Europe over an unknown amount of time).

    Do you want to go back before the last Ice Age? Or before homo sapiens - this island was inhabited before any humans "stole" it.

    Your country`s land theft is much more recent.
  37. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 5:36 am
    Although it still makes me laugh you went independant for various reasons, one being not wanting to pay taxes. Oh, that`s right. You still pay taxes. That worked out well, didn`t it?

    The official issue about taxes was with paying taxes to a government they didn`t have any representation in, not with paying taxes per se. Although no doubt some of them thought it was about not paying taxes at all - there are always people who get misled or just don`t understand.

    Some people would argue that the average USA citizen is still paying taxes to a government that they don`t have any representation in.
  38. Profile photo of FredSpudman
    FredSpudman Male 18-29
    653 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 5:39 am
    @Amen QueenZira. Proper bint. Even in death she haunts us by far too many mentions in the media.
  39. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 5:46 am
    £40M is nothing like what they really cost us, that is the figure published which doesn`t include the cost of their security which are somewhere in the region of £100M, it`s by far their biggest expense.

    An expense which would be required regardless of who was head of state, so it has nothing to do with a monarch.

    If you think that it could be folded into the PM`s job without any additional expense, do yourself a favour and don`t make your ignorance public.
  40. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 5:49 am
    I`m not proposing executing them, just cutting their government funding. They can keep calling themselves the royal family and living in their castles but do it off their own back. They have business interests and large bank accounts, they will be fine.

    Why do you think it`s a better idea for the UK to pay ~£200M a year to keep the same system we currently have?

    Seriously, how does that make any sense?
  41. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 5:59 am
    No tourists see the royal family terrible point. What`s princess charles salary now he holds the highest military rank possible thanks to grandmumsy. You know for a country chocked full of pompus know it alls that love to tout socialist policies you sure like to support something far from socialist. In fact it epitomises everything wrong with the planet.
  42. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 6:03 am
    Although it still makes me laugh you went independant for various reasons, one being not wanting to pay taxes.

    You should brush up history it was taxation without representation. Not no taxes.
  43. Profile photo of FredSpudman
    FredSpudman Male 18-29
    653 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 6:07 am
    Hva faen indeed. However, the Norwegians have an rainy day oil fund with which to buy mercenaries to ward off attack from Her Maj.
  44. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 6:10 am
    Your country`s land theft is much more recent.

    The majority of that land is now owned by people who have worked for it. The royal joke had it handed to them. Seeing a difference yet? A people elected not by the people but by "god" LOL!
  45. Profile photo of fuzzysheep
    fuzzysheep Male 18-29
    187 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 6:12 am
    We owe the Royal family nothing, they are a relic of an unpleasant past when who your parents were mattered more than who you are. They are the embodiment of the opposite of the American dream. It`s offensive that there are people born in the world who, by birth, are considered better and more important than others.

    I`m not an idiot, I know the world is an unfair place and it`s always going to be unequal because good parents try to do their best for their children but to have a royal family is to endorse the idea that some are born better than others.

    Angillion, you think that if the prime minister was head of state he would require more security? Why? Does him being head of state make him a bigger target than he already is? Doesn`t being the prime minister already mean far more than an honorary title that has no power? Even if his security would have to be increased, surely it will still be more efficient to increase his security than look after two separate people
  46. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 6:17 am
    OH wait I mean princess william was promoted to top rank probably just like his daddy.
  47. Profile photo of slightlys
    slightlys Male 18-29
    92 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:19 am
    She is the spitting image of George H. W. Bush or, George H. W. Bush is the spitting image of her?
  48. Profile photo of krisbrown
    krisbrown Male 30-39
    161 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:24 am
    america, this is why you`re fa...wait, why aren`t we bashing america? surely this is our fault somehow yes?
  49. Profile photo of krisbrown
    krisbrown Male 30-39
    161 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:29 am
    and then i scroll down...it HAS descended into that lol. i can`t get over how insecure the europeans are. so fooking funny. they dish it out over and over again, then the second there is something negative about them they flip out like toddlers. bwahahahahhahah!!!
  50. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:30 am
    t was more specifically taxation without representation and the outright abuse of colonial people and resources that caused the revolution.
    This is hogwash perpetuated by an education system that gives you cliffsnotes. Yes, there was technically taxation without representation, but the truth is that they rarely collected those taxes! Your ancestors were basically living rent-free at home. British taxes were only on trade, and smuggling was laughably easy. They also didn`t give two sh*ts about their colonies if it was peacetime and the colonies were prosperous and appeared to cooperate with the loosely enforced trade and navigation acts, their policy was one of salutary neglect. Even when it was necessary to collect taxes, they were unable to do so effectively anyway, because colonists would throw a sh*t-fit and the Brits would acquiesce. After they tried to tax you for the French and Indian War (which colonists dragged Britain into in the first place)...
  51. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:32 am
    I reckon we get damn good value from the Windsors... they are part of a heritage which earns us a lot- and because they are alive that heritage stays live. Much more interesting that monarchs long past.
  52. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:35 am
    ...they repealed all the taxes (except the ones on tea) simply because YOU DIDN`T WANT TO PAY THEM! What government today would repeal taxes just because people got angry that they had a new tax? Then when the Brits made the Tea Act of 1773 to give you cheaper, better tea than smugglers could provide, you threw it in the water. This was in part thanks to a smuggler who didn`t want his smuggled tea revenue cut into, and that man was John Hancock.
  53. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:55 am
    @patchgrabber

    It was more than taxes though. The colonists also had to house british soldiers. We were also being forced to give up our firearms and had been fired upon during protests. Wars are seldom fought without reason but keep assuring yourself that`s what it was. I`m sure you already knew all this though with you massive cranium and superior education......
  54. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 7:59 am
    After they tried to tax you for the French and Indian War (which colonists dragged Britain into in the first place)...

    BWUAHAHAHAA!! Ya France and Britain were great buddies...
  55. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:06 am
    Wars are seldom fought without reason
    Like the aforementioned French and Indian War the Virginia colonists dragged Britain into by claiming fur trade territory in Ohio AFTER the French had already claimed it, then a colonial militia ambushed a French military delegate and his party who were there to talk to those in charge of the Virginia colony? Then to make matters worse, the colonial smugglers supplied the French illegally throughout that war against the British, who were fighting FOR you in the first place? You act as if colonists were all little angels with halos over their heads, which is just ignorant. I`m not saying everything the British did was right, but the colonists are far from any moral high ground.
  56. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:09 am
    Then when the Brits made the Tea Act of 1773 to give you cheaper, better tea than smugglers could provide, you threw it in the water.

    We threw it in the water because the Tea Act amounted to a bailout of the British EITC, which had a LEGALLY SANCTIONED monopoly on tea in the 13 states.
  57. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:09 am
    BWUAHAHAHAA!! Ya France and Britain were great buddies...
    That doesn`t mean they wanted another war. In that case the colonists were like the loud-mouth friend that picks a fight at a bar and his friend is obliged to come in and help him.
  58. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:13 am
    We threw it in the water because the Tea Act amounted to a bailout of the British EITC, which had a LEGALLY SANCTIONED monopoly on tea in the 13 states.


    They wouldn`t have had to bail them out if colonist smugglers hadn`t stolen all their revenues in the first place. Britain gave them an exclusive deal to sell their high quality tea cheaply to the colonists. Then, the British bundled it with a smaller import tax. Yes, it was like having to buy every Wii bundled with a copy of Let`s Lotion Stuff 2, but the whole damn thing would only be 25 dollars, so it sounded like a fair compromise. Britain just wanted the Tea Tax in there to a) show they still were running sh*t at least a little bit and b) discourage people from illegally buy low-grade crap from smugglers. That is so horrible. Smugglers like John Hancock don`t like being told they can`t smuggle, plain and simple.
  59. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:15 am
    I`m not saying everything the British did was right, but the colonists are far from any moral high ground.

    Right, and everything McGovern mentioned was the reason why colonists sought to further undermine the British ability to govern, because they couldn`t do it properly.
  60. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:19 am
    discourage people from illegally buy low-grade crap from smugglers. That is so horrible.

    I see people buy Miller and Coors all the time. Cheapest low-grade beers on the market (german word is pisswasser), but if they want to buy it they can.
  61. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:20 am
    but if they want to buy it they can.
    Because that is actually legal.
  62. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:22 am
    Some people would argue that the average USA citizen is still paying taxes to a government that they don`t have any representation in.

    Back then it would be true, but now it`s hyperbole and really just misleading considering the circumstances.
  63. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:23 am
    Because that is actually legal.

    So why ban the crappy stuff?
  64. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:28 am
    So why ban the crappy stuff?
    Now we`re going around in circles. It`s because of smugglers illegally stealing revenues, so the British tried to save a company they had a vested interest in.
  65. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:29 am
    It`s because of smugglers illegally stealing revenues

    How were they stealing revenues?
  66. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:32 am
    How were they stealing revenues?
    ...By smuggling.
  67. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:39 am
    ...By smuggling.

    In which case such smuggling never should`ve been illegal in the first place.
  68. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 8:45 am
    so the British tried to save a company they had a vested interest in.

    Sounds to me like crony capitalism, which is why capitalism has a bad rep these days. Anyways, weren`t there other companies trading in India at the time?
  69. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 11:29 am
    Ocelotuk ought to take a holiday to Thailand. Their royalty find this sort of thing hilarious. He could even win the competition, the prizes are awesome!
  70. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    And along comes fuzzysheep to make a fool of themself by making their ignorance public. I didn`t think anyone would do it, but I was wrong.

    Even if his security would have to be increased, surely it will still be more efficient to increase his security than look after two separate people

    There would still be two seperate people. One to do the work that the PM does now and one to do the work that the head of state does now. You`d also need some more people to do the work that the other members of the royal family do. Although they wouldn`t be able to do all of it as well - a state visit with the queen carries more weight than a state visit with whoever won the head of state lottery (or however you`d decide it).

    So you`d lose ~£230M a year from the crown estate, you`d lose even more long-term from diminished tourism and you might possibly save a couple of million a year by reducing security, maybe.
  71. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 1, 2012 at 6:11 am
    Good grief the spambots are getting more aggressive.
  72. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    August 1, 2012 at 6:40 am
    @Angilion

    You seem to think tourists come to see the royal family they don`t. Even if they wanted to they can`t really.
  73. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    August 1, 2012 at 6:40 am
    @Cajun247

    That`s an Asian cutie I say leave it!!!
  74. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 1, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    You seem to think tourists come to see the royal family they don`t. Even if they wanted to they can`t really.

    You seem to be making things up because even you know that you`re irrational.

    No, wait. You don`t seem to be doing that. You are doing that. No "seems to be", since you`ve thoughtfully provided proof. Repeatedly.

    You are deluded about this issue. I can say that confidently because it makes you incapable of doing simple maths and causes you to see things that aren`t there - delusional.
  75. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    August 2, 2012 at 7:43 am
    @Angilion

    You seem to be rambling incoherantly.
  76. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    August 2, 2012 at 9:36 pm
    It`s a dumb, by-gone era. Having a royal family is pretty much a slap in the face to all "commoners". They serve no purpose, and if I lived in England I would be a little pissed about it. The "jig" should be up on that.
  77. Profile photo of Sonsglow
    Sonsglow Male 18-29
    201 posts
    August 3, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    Aaaaand, how did the family acquire that land to begin with? LET ME GUESS! Way back when they were just peasants like everyone else, but they weren`t lazy like those other peasants! They worked HARD and they made their money, acquired their land, and attained their status FAIR and SQUARE (the old fashioned way)! Anyone could have done it, but that`s what separates rich and poor! Laziness... //sarcasm

Leave a Reply