Petition to make UK royal family pay for Buck Palace repairs

[KermitGKona88]

Can I just point out that the 'Crown Estate' is owned by you, me and the guvment?

That includes Buck Palace, St James Palace, Regent St and so on? So we are paying for repairs on something that we own.

Now, the Windsors own Balmoral, Sandringham and of course, Windsor castle and are disgustingly rich in their own right.

So when your have all quite finished frothing at the keyboard, consider the facts before you have all a coronary.

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/

Just to sum up, if the Royals were paying rent for Buckingham Palace, the Crown Estate would STILL have to stump up repairs as they would be the landords as with any private tenancy agreement..

Now, go and ride bicycles and calm down

Very well said and superbly put, lets hope no-one feels harassed by this

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

Why is 'how rich the rich are is irrelevant?
How do you think they are getting richer?

Not sure if serious. The basic point is that relative and absolute poverty are two different things, and wealth relative to 'the rich' is never going to end well for 'the poor'. It's irrelevant.

If Mr Minimum Wage gets a rise of £10 a week what does it matter if Branson makes an extra £1m a week, or £1m less for that matter? He's richer by a tenner. He's relatively poorer if Dicky makes his extra million but so what, he's got an extra tenner.

Btw techno, any chance of any bike talk, especially old ones while you are here?

Not in off topic, no.

 

[Harryburgundy]

Re: Re:

Why is 'how rich the rich are is irrelevant?
How do you think they are getting richer?

Not sure if serious. The basic point is that relative and absolute poverty are two different things, and wealth relative to 'the rich' is never going to end well for 'the poor'. It's irrelevant.

If Mr Minimum Wage gets a rise of £10 a week what does it matter if Branson makes an extra £1m a week, or £1m less for that matter? He's richer by a tenner. He's relatively poorer if Dicky makes his extra million but so what, he's got an extra tenner.

Btw techno, any chance of any bike talk, especially old ones while you are here?

Not in off topic, no.

What is relevant is that governments make choices as to what benefits the rich or what benefits the poor.
I'm under no illusion that there will always be those that have more or less than others, but the current polarisation of wealth is untenable and socially damaging.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Have to say I agree with just about everything Harry is saying.

My entire life has been dedicated to the struggle against the 'man', and the pursuit of the 'clam'.

I am glad I am not rich, I would only squander it on hookers and blow. (Are those even separate things?)

However, I don't like the idea of so many people having so little access to a comfortable lifestyle, in the name of a competitive system that really is weighted in favour of the privileged.

My whole bent towards human rights and such was born out of seeing first hand how the filthy rich live, and how the disenfranchised die.

Not a pretty picture.

But the clam is lovely.

 

[KDM]

Re: Re:

My entire life has been dedicated to the struggle against the 'man', and the pursuit of the 'clam'. But the clam is lovely.

Does CLAM mean something different in Scotland ?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Different than what?

 

[KDM]

I always understood clam to mean two things. One, a Mollusk and the second, a lady's front bottom.

 

[Adruzzz]

Now, go and ride bicycles and calm down

You leave them alone, this is all quite entertaining

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

What is relevant is that governments make choices as to what benefits the rich or what benefits the poor.
I'm under no illusion that there will always be those that have more or less than others, but the current polarisation of wealth is untenable and socially damaging.

There's always been polarisation of wealth, and always will be. 10x, 100x, 1000x, the gap doesn't matter- what government should be doing is helping those at the bottom improve their life chances. Take them out of tax altogether. Scrap the contrived tax credits rigmarole. Provide subsidised training or college. Work on attracting inward investment to create jobs.

You can't make the poor richer by giving them money. And you certainly can't do it by taking money from the wealthy.

It's always going to be shit at the bottom. The key is understanding how to get off the bottom, and that comes with education, training, skills, state assistance where needed and importantly the taking of opportunities when presented. A huge part of that is down to the individual though, and I believe the onus should be on people to help themselves rather than government to wipe their arse every five minutes.

You spoke before of deprived areas, there's a piece on the BBC site about Middlesbrough just now. How it expanded from nothing to 170000 people in a century or so. They came for the work. Immigrants are still doing it as we know, coming here to better themselves. The only people seemingly not willing to move to work are the local inhabitants of our crap towns. They want the work to come to them. The want the government to do something.

If they only looked at their forebears or the new influx of immigrants they might find the real answer.

 

[KDM]

Re:

The thread itself is little more than first world problems.

I doubt a man in a mud hut with no safe water, food, healthcare,education, transport etc would view any of us with free healthcare, roads, large screen tv, £700 iphones, sky, university educations, clean running water, buses, trains. a social benefits system giving free housing, free money, support for the most disabled...as oppressed by the man