Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

GF,

Agreed once more!

The employment are false.

What surprises me is the apathy of the general public.

They may be keeping their powder dry, but also I don't think the cutbacks have really kicked in yet.

But I suppose Hays will be alright as there must be a food bank close to him.

Feel sorry for the Royal Family, perhaps the state could help out by relieving them of a number of unrequired bedrooms and other properties.

Open them up to the increasing homeless.

The figures on population come from the Daily Mail and even they mention that it isn't caused by immigration. It is caused by the high birth rate among people already here.

Hays,

I knew somebody should have cut your .. off.

8-)

.

Hays,

I knew somebody should have cut your .. off.

8-)

Fred
The royal palaces do not belong to the royal family. In fact they can only occupy a very small area of those buildings. The state owns them all and is responsible for their upkeep.

Does that mean I can move in when I want to then?

Does it apply to all properties?

Why aren't capitalist principles applied to those building and upkeep paid out of direct income?

Austerity reigns, we need more savings and cut backs.

Open all the "state" buildings to the "public" and charge for entrance.

If they are profitable, good. If not flog them off.

---------------

Do you imagine that you can move into all of the buildings that the state owns. The reasons for not having access are many and various and EVEN you should be able to guess at some of them.

Well Im a Royalist but I think its wrong in this age of austerity that the queen gets a 5% annual increase when all middle class and below are getting nothing or miserly increases.

I heard on the BBC news that this increase is needed for repairs to the Queens estate.

BUT Hays says this.......

Haystack - 27 Jun 2013 18:02 - 26487 of 26489

Fred
The royal palaces do not belong to the royal family.......ends

So if thats the case why does the Queen need a 5% increase?, and indeed why is she getting one.

If this is a seperate budget why have the press/media including Tory press not pointed this out????.

In fact I read on a tory rag online the 5% increase was being given because the Queens business empire had made a 5% profit increase year on year.

JUST WHAT IS THE TRUTH??????????????????????????

Surely the Royal Family have a few bob tucked away that they can spend on these repairs.

"One hour contracts"

That's the latest wheeze to massage the number of "people in work" figs.


Invented by Nu Labour.

Not the Queen's business empire, but the crown estates which includes parts of the coastline and other land and property. The profit goes to the government, but there is an allowance of 15% of the profit that goes to the royal purse. As the crown estate has made more money this last year, there is a corresponding increase in the money paid to the queen. The arrangement was in return for the sovereign giving their holdings of land etc to the state. As has been made clear the increase is to be spent on building work at Buckingham Palace and Windsor.

So its the Government who pays for Building work at BP and Windsor (through Crown Estate) and the queen pockets a 5% increase. ?? In other words her 15% allowance has been raised by 5% year on year.

In other words after the Queens 15% (which has been inflated 5%) the rest of the 5% increase the government have recieved is spent on the 2 buildings.

She still has a net 5% increase which to me seems very unfair given that 'we are all in this together'.

No, the increase is partly to pay for the building work. The 15% is the percentage of the profit that the queen gets. The 5% is the amount that the figure has increased. The money is to maintain the monarch. It cover her royal household etc. It is not money that is personally for her like a salary. She had her own money that is invested amounting to around £200m I believe.

Well yes Hays that I took for granted but why a 5% INCREASE, THATS WAY ABOVE INFLATION AND WAY ABOVE WHAT THE REST OF US HAVE HAD TO ACCEPT.

Its wrong. She should be tightening the monarchy budget and yes I know she has done for the last few years, but weve all had to tighten our budgets since 2008.

She should dip into her personal fortune or that of Charles if she wants to spend above cost of living standards.

Its certainly not giving out the right vibes to her subjects.

hays - you're an ass .... why on earth do you keep taking the bait?

The increase is automatic as the royal purse just gets 15% of the profit from the crown estate. The profit of it rose by 5% so the queen's share rose 5%. She is still getting 15% of the profit, but it is bigger.Why should she pay personally to pay for the monarchy. It would be like telling someone rich who worked for ICI to help the company out. She is effectively an employee. The money she gets runs the monarchy. It is not for her.

cynic
For amusement!

"Its certainly not giving out the right vibes to her subjects." I think considering that she's still working her blooming socks off for this country at the age of 87 - or whatever she is - and has never, ever put a foot wrong during her time as our monarch, she's entitled to a little pay rise. The "subjects" who object to the monarchy in this country can never come up with a better alternative. Why on earth do you think that tourists come to this country each year just to watch the trooping of the colour. You don't object when your football tickets go up by 5% year after year - you still go and watch these overpaid, brainless muppets.

Hays once again you conflict your side of the debate and stand on your own toes....

Haystack- 27 Jun 2013 19:43 - 26494 of 26499

It cover her royal household etc. It is not money that is personally for her like a salary. She had her own money that is invested amounting to around £200m I believe.

THEN WE GET THE CONFLICT

Haystack - 27 Jun 2013 20:12 - 26497 of 26499

She is effectively an employee...............

NOW COME ON HAYS MAKE YOUR MIND UP.

What you are really saying she is in charge of the monarchy and accepting a 5 % increase to manage the monarchy, but why on earth should the monarchy get an increase above inflation.

The Torries want caps, the monarchy should be capped to a level of inflation.

I can tell you now their is an awful lot of unrest on twitter tonight over this 5 % increase.

Ohh and by the way inform your faggot mate to shut up.

By the way will someone inform doodlebug I filtered him weeks back. No doubt hes once again proving what an uneducated idiot he is.

As usual he'l have looked at half the story and hasnt read my opening post were I declare I am a Royalist.