Petition to make UK royal family pay for Buck Palace repairs

[Harryburgundy]

Would you care to provide some evidence that proves your statement. The old tourism chestnut is bogus, there is absolutely no evidence of this.
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423

Absolutely happy too

Alva does not even show Buckingham Palace anywhere in it's list, why would that be?

Let me help you with some real facts http://www.uncsbrp.org/tourism.htm Buckingham Palace is by far the most popular tourist attraction in London, as it attracts around 15 million tourists each year.

Add a few extra non visitors and the most photographed places in the UK, you might see a familiar place in there http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-most- ... in-2015-19

The royal family's undisclosed security bill is picked-up by the Met.

Well of course it's picked up by the met, Buck house is in London and they never disclose senior vip funding for security as some parts would identify parts that could be siezed upon who wish them harm, That is why it is called security, keep up man.

Income from the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall go directly to the royal family on top of the 15% surplus revenue Sovereign grant.

They do? Not according to their accounts http://duchyofcornwall.org/assets/image ... 202015.pdf

Erm, to be honest, this made absolutely no sense to me. Is it too difficult to have a debate without puerile stereotyping?

Is Honesty stereotyping?

If we really must keep the royal family to appease royalists, I don't get it but I can appreciate some do, we need to change it.

Are you using the Royal "WE" Harry? careful, you will be called the monarchy. Most people it would seem are happy about it other than the anti monarchy teeth grinders and lets be honest, who cares what they think, they are a rather small bunch of what tends to be angry with everyone, men.

Reduce the royal family expenditure by cutting out all the minor royals.

You do know that happens already?

Set an annual fixed budget for the reduced royal family, to be managed by government NOT Buckingham Palace

It was set by Government and the royals, 85% of the estates earnings go to the public purse and 15% to fund themselves.

Of course under your ideas we could say Mam, I know we do not fund you but the anti monarchists think we do, the rascals. Would you mind awfully if we changed the agreement and so you kept the 85% you currently give to the public purse as well as the 15% so can say see they keep all their money so must be funding themselves?

All security cost to be open and accountable

This just shows your anger is at the monarchy, why else would you just ask for theirs? To explain all of the security costs would show weak points causing security issues and that is why almost ALL vip protections costs and information are kept private

Transfer ownership of the Duchies to the public.

You are not quite with it Harry, if they transfer it over, then the state would have to support them in a way that they support themselves now and so you keep the circle of hate going, you are going to have to come up with something far better than what you have offered other than blind hate. You want them to hand over everything after saying they should not be funded

On that basis, if you own your own house and land, would you transfer it to the public, after all what you are saying is equality for all?

I'd gladly wave a flag if that happened.

I doubt you'd gladly do anything Harry as the hate would just move onto the next flag

Nonsensical gibberish. I really can't be bothered investing my time unpacking this.

 

[KDM]

Your entitled to Harry which is fair enough but I think I can see a solution

You do not want Brexit as you want to be part of Europe, you do not want a monarchy but instead you want a République and, you do like wine, I can see an obvious answer here

 

[The History Man]

There's a few on here who like a good wine it seems.

 

[Harryburgundy]

Your entitled to Harry which is fair enough but I think I can see a solution

You do not want Brexit as you want to be part of Europe, you do not want a monarchy but instead you want a République and, you do like wine, I can see an obvious answer here

Ah yes, your last comment replicates those who have come before you
'If you don't like my (your) view you can always go and live in (add country which complements your narrative)
How very 'Britain First' of you.

Anyway, I'm off to listen to some looney leftie, terrorist sympathising tree hugging herbal tea drinking liberal politically correct Marxist proletariat music.

 

[Harryburgundy]

That the poorest in our society are getting poorer under this government, whilst the very rich are getting richer is unequivocal. I know it's not an ideology that you embrace, but governments have a duty to support those areas in the UK that have suffered degeneration

How rich the rich are is irrelevant, except in the sense that as they get richer the tax take goes up to help pay for those less fortunate. The poorest workers have had NMW rises, and increases in the tax threshold so they don't pay any. Throwing money at these people is a short term and ineffective solution. I'd far rather we encouraged them, and incentivised employers for training, upskilling, further education or whatever to increase their earning potential. You seem to have the idea that I want people to be poor- it's not the case. But I understand the difference in giving a fish and teaching to fish, and the resultant long term benefit from the latter. Those who are offered the chance to learn to fish and reject it are those who deserve to be poor.

To penalise, for example, by way of a £50 reduction in benefits a single mother who is late for an appointment by five minutes because the bus was late (or whatever) is disproportionately punitive.

Maybe it is. So maybe mum should be making absolutely sure she's there on time. If that means two hours early so be it. If I'm going to work on an oil rig and I miss the flight by 5 minutes because my bus is late I'm not sure I'd get the same sympathy.

I could go on about the downward spiral of malnutrition and its negative affect on the cognitive development of those children who parents are forced to buy cheap nutritional deficient food...but hey, some people are meant to be poor, right, and it's not the duty of a government to interfere. Sick.

You could, and I could go on about a myriad of expensive health information campaigns which are ignored, and that nobody is 'forced' to buy shit food. People buy shit food because it's easier, and they are lazy. I'm not sure why I, who chooses not to have children, have to fund other people's children simply because their parents made poor and unsustainable choices.

I wish no ill on children, but some parents are simply not fit to have them and should be discouraged.

Zero hours contracts deny workers some very basic protections and rights.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Used to be called casual labour, and has benefits for both sides. I go back to my reskilling point above. Leaving aside that many people on 'ZHC' are actually well paid contractors, if we reskilled people maybe they wouldn't have to rely on low wage and irregular work.

We do have a handle on who comes and goes.

No we don't, the government hasn't a clue.

Migration is and has for many decades been a net benefit to this country. You're blaming migration for global economic difficulties. A nice easy target for you, well done.

And you're either a bit simple or you're deliberating misinterpreting my point (I can guess which). Knowing your numbers and controlling net migration to suit our needs is not 'blaming' migration for anything.

The NHS is a bit of a mess and it's difficult to find an answer. People are living much longer through various factors and the population is increasing. The funding is clearly disproportionate and represents real world cuts in spending. I'm not keen on privatisation for obvious reasons, means testing would probably be too complicated. My view is we need to take a more holistic approach to our nations health.

Funding is disproportionately large, which isn't what you meant. Apart from that however I broadly agree. I go back to my previous point of trying to educate, inform and skill people in the basics. We have people three generations out of work with bad diets, smoking and drinking etc. We have people abusing the system because there's no personal investment e.g. unused prescriptions gong to waste, appointments not kept. All because 'it's free'. IMO we need a pared down NHS, together with private sector input where it can improve outcomes, but alongside a big education drive to help people help themselves, as well as reduce the burden on the system.

The BBC is clearly pro-conservative biased

I think we're watching a different BBC. Not that I watch a lot of it.

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

 

[KDM]

My point was you were born in the wrong country not that you should leave this one silly.

Anyway, I'm off to listen to some looney leftie, terrorist sympathising tree hugging herbal tea drinking liberal politically correct Marxist proletariat music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA

 

[Harryburgundy]

My point was you were born in the wrong country not that you should leave this one silly.

Very true! Although the link was inappropriate, I'll embrace the humour.

The UK, for whatever inexplicable reason leans towards the right, I do belong elsewhere, a more tolerant and progressive nation.

 

[brocklanders023]

Re:

I was going to join in but then technodup turned up again and I can't be bothered engaging with that nonsense. All I will say is that technodup is ninfan off singletrackworld and I claim my prize.

Oh, and I agree with harry for the most part but can't say I have much to say about the queen either way.

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

 

[Harryburgundy]

Re: Re:

I was going to join in but then technodup turned up again and I can't be bothered engaging with that nonsense. All I will say is that technodup is ninfan off singletrackworld and I claim my prize.

Oh, and I agree with harry for the most part but can't say I have much to say about the queen either way.

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

Ha ha!

 

[legrandefromage]

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