"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-05-02, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:54, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-02, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:41, News wrote:
In message , Tim Watts
writes
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.

No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted
****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around
outside
paying into our economy.

Well said Tim! :-)

Not to mention a similar situation here, where the attraction is
Balmoral. Doubtless the same at Windsor and Sandringham.


And everyone conveniently forgets the civil list is in exchange for
handing over a very large amount of lands...

And if we emulated the French and lopped off their useless, inbred,
empty,
German heads, we could have the land *and* get rid of the Civil List.



and have President Blair?

No thanks - and yes, you know it WOULD happen...

Except we could get rid of an elected President. As it is, we're stuck
with the baldy, jug-eared morons.

There is nobody more moronic than socialists.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Huge" wrote in message
...
And if we emulated the French and lopped off their useless, inbred,
empty,
German heads, we could have the land *and* get rid of the Civil List.

The atrocities committed by the Norman invaders and their descendant spawn
far exceed anything done by the Nazis, and set back the well-being of the
people of
Brit by several centuries.

You need to study your history.
Especially about Plantagenets, Tudors and Stewarts.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 14:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/15 14:21, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 14:18, tim..... wrote:

Than which their forefathers "stole" in the first place.


So you'll give your land back then, once you've researched who stole it
of whom 2000 odd years ago? Or verified in the process that your
ancestors only took over virgin unclaimed land?

The whole point of raping and pillaging and genocide is to make it
impossible to determine who in the end has a right to be anywhere...



And whoes kids are whoes :-)

Whose.

I read somewhere that it can be demonsyrated the the British royal line is
discontinuous as an official father was on the crusades at the time of
conception.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.



No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted ****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around outside
paying into our economy.

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

62p wasted.

You must be a (brain dead) socialist.
Don't know the difference between an asset and a liability.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 17:14, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Huge writes:
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.



No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted
****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around
outside
paying into our economy.

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

62p wasted.

Income to the exchequer from royal estates is around £260M/year.
15% of this is paid back to the royal family to fund their official
duties, including upkeep of the buildings/estates. (This replaced the
civil list payments and payments from various government departments
for things like royal travel which were abolished a few years ago.)

Policing, security, and other costs for royals are around £300M/year.

A normal year brings in around £500M of foreign tourist revenue
for royal events. In a year with a royal wedding, jubilee, birth, etc,
this figure exceeds £1B.

So, they are always significantly profitable for the UK, and in special
years, they are extremely profitable for the UK.

Spot on.

A country that aspires to being a 21st C democracy should not
have a hereditary head of state. End of debate.

Only brain dead socialists think that.
Quite a few "republics" gone back to royals when they see what arseholes
virtually all presidents are.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously ****ed up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2015 17:46:22 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
A country that aspires to being a 21st C democracy should not
have a hereditary head of state. End of debate.

What's so great about being a 21st C democracy that we should aspire to
it?

Owain




It's all so boring. I made the mistake of looking at BBC news at
lunchtime. It was a waste of time, no news whatsoever, all baby crap.

Well it's either that or all bad news.
Eg Nepal earthquake.

Oh hey, there's drownings in the Med.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 02/05/15 20:03, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

*Your* Royal family perhaps.
They are most certainly not accepted as "our" Royal family by many people
in
this country.

Wot - Yorkshire?

No, he means the immigrants and traitors.

"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge writes:
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.



No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted ****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around outside
paying into our economy.

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

62p wasted.

Income to the exchequer from royal estates is around £260M/year.
15% of this is paid back to the royal family to fund their official
duties, including upkeep of the buildings/estates. (This replaced the
civil list payments and payments from various government departments
for things like royal travel which were abolished a few years ago.)

Policing, security, and other costs for royals are around £300M/year.

A normal year brings in around £500M of foreign tourist revenue
for royal events. In a year with a royal wedding, jubilee, birth, etc,
this figure exceeds £1B.

So, they are always significantly profitable for the UK, and in special
years, they are extremely profitable for the UK.

Please tell us how this has benefited the people who do not live in the
south.

Most of the governments tax income comes from the SE.
Which subsidises elsewhere.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-05-02, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.



No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted ****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around outside
paying into our economy.

Someone else who's never been to Versailles. It's rammed with tourists,
and
the French executed their royals hundreds of years ago, which is the best
thing that could happen to them.

You are brain dead.

There would be evenmore if the French royal family still existed,

Anyway you are wrong. The French royal family resumed after Napoleon was
defeated.

Who incidently tried to set up his own dynasty.
As revolutionaries do.
ie,it was a coup, not surge of democracy.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jonno" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...
Broadback scribbled


Oh, more tax waste then?


One retail expert has already estimated that the new princess will be
worth in the region of £150?million a year to the economy ? mainly
as a benefit to the fashion and beauty industry.

And that number is straight from someone's arse, you can tell from the
smell.

It's your royal family too ****-fer-brains.

On Sat, 2 May 2015 21:51:42 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Broadback scribbled


Oh, more tax waste then?


One retail expert has already estimated that the new princess will be
worth in the region of £150?million a year to the economy ? mainly as a
benefit to the fashion and beauty industry.

Much of which will leave the Country to pay for cheap imported Tat
G.Harman

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 17:14, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Huge writes:
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.



No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted
****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around
outside
paying into our economy.

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

62p wasted.

Income to the exchequer from royal estates is around £260M/year.
15% of this is paid back to the royal family to fund their official
duties, including upkeep of the buildings/estates. (This replaced the
civil list payments and payments from various government departments
for things like royal travel which were abolished a few years ago.)

Policing, security, and other costs for royals are around £300M/year.

A normal year brings in around £500M of foreign tourist revenue
for royal events. In a year with a royal wedding, jubilee, birth, etc,
this figure exceeds £1B.

So, they are always significantly profitable for the UK, and in special
years, they are extremely profitable for the UK.

Spot on.

A country that aspires to being a 21st C democracy should not
have a hereditary head of state. End of debate.

Only brain dead socialists think that.
Quite a few "republics" gone back to royals when they see what arseholes
virtually all presidents are.

Very few have in fact.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jonno" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...
Broadback scribbled


Oh, more tax waste then?


One retail expert has already estimated that the new princess will be
worth in the region of £150?million a year to the economy ? mainly
as a benefit to the fashion and beauty industry.

And that number is straight from someone's arse, you can tell from the
smell.

It's your royal family too

More fool us. Bet we toss it in the bin once Liz carks it and we end up with
big ears.

On 02/05/2015 22:31, alan_m wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:45, Bod wrote:

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

Is it 62p? Have you seen the amount security that accompanies a Royal
when they turn up anywhere?

The same number of tourists would visit if we didn't have a Royal
Family. Chinese tourists appear to be bussed out on mass to out-of-town
retail outlets on trading estates.

Hmm!
"A new report today reveals that Buckingham Palace is the "dream"
activity for people in 15 out of 19 countries surveyed by tourist chiefs
at Visit Britain, including Australians, Americans, the Chinese,
Italians and the Mexicans."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-tourists.html

In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 14:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/15 14:21, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 14:18, tim..... wrote:

Than which their forefathers "stole" in the first place.


So you'll give your land back then, once you've researched who stole
it of whom 2000 odd years ago? Or verified in the process that your
ancestors only took over virgin unclaimed land?

The whole point of raping and pillaging and genocide is to make it
impossible to determine who in the end has a right to be anywhere...



And whoes kids are whoes :-)

Whose.

I read somewhere that it can be demonsyrated the the British royal line
is discontinuous as an official father was on the crusades at the time
of conception.

I'm not aware of any Scotish king going to the crusades

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 02/05/2015 23:00, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-02, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2015 13:55:00 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
And if we emulated the French

What would you like to emulate about the French?

Their cheese.


The French are now preferring our English cheeses, like Cheddar.

On 03/05/2015 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously ****ed up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.


The vast majority of people in this country thought she was great and
she was extremely popular all over the world. Only the blind couldn't
see that.

On 03/05/2015 06:39, harryagain wrote:
"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge writes:
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.



No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted ****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around outside
paying into our economy.

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

62p wasted.

Income to the exchequer from royal estates is around £260M/year.
15% of this is paid back to the royal family to fund their official
duties, including upkeep of the buildings/estates. (This replaced the
civil list payments and payments from various government departments
for things like royal travel which were abolished a few years ago.)

Policing, security, and other costs for royals are around £300M/year.

A normal year brings in around £500M of foreign tourist revenue
for royal events. In a year with a royal wedding, jubilee, birth, etc,
this figure exceeds £1B.

So, they are always significantly profitable for the UK, and in special
years, they are extremely profitable for the UK.

Please tell us how this has benefited the people who do not live in the
south.

Most of the governments tax income comes from the SE.
Which subsidises elsewhere.


Correct.

On Sat, 02 May 2015 13:24:07 +0100 Tim Watts wrote :
No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted
**** knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

No one wanted? Conservative MPs, unlike their Labour opposites,
voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Iraq war and no doubt the
Daily Mail and friends were all behind them. If they'd followed the
LibDem opposition to it, the war - or UK involvement in it -
probably wouldn't have happened.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously ****ed up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.


The vast majority of people in this country thought she was great and she
was extremely popular all over the world. Only the blind couldn't see
that.

Only the ones that never met her.

On 02/05/2015 14:12, Tim Watts wrote:
and have President Blair?
No thanks - and yes, you know it WOULD happen...

OK Rip Van, you do realise Blair was two prime ministers ago?

On 02/05/2015 17:42, Huge wrote:

As it is, we're stuck
with the baldy, jug-eared morons.
Shouldn't that be baldy, jug eared, GERMAN morons?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jonno" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...
Broadback scribbled


Oh, more tax waste then?


One retail expert has already estimated that the new princess will be
worth in the region of £150?million a year to the economy ? mainly
as a benefit to the fashion and beauty industry.

And that number is straight from someone's arse, you can tell from the
smell.

It's your royal family too

More fool us. Bet we toss it in the bin once Liz carks it and we end up
with big ears.

Got more sense than any of your politicians.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

More fool us. Bet we toss it in the bin once Liz carks it and we end up
with big ears.

Which will be interesting because his great uncle abdicated in order to
be able to marry a divorcee.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.

The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House.
All the others are owned by the British state.

But the British State is a monarchy.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 18:49, Capitol wrote:


It's all so boring. I made the mistake of looking at BBC news at
lunchtime. It was a waste of time, no news whatsoever, all baby crap.

It could have been worse - all election crap.

Could the birth have been induced to create a good time to
bury bad news about the election?

On 03/05/2015 09:27, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously ****ed up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.


The vast majority of people in this country thought she was great and she
was extremely popular all over the world. Only the blind couldn't see
that.

Only the ones that never met her.


Most people never met her, but they still thought she was great.

On 02/05/15 21:40, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 02/05/15 20:03, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

*Your* Royal family perhaps.
They are most certainly not accepted as "our" Royal family by many people
in
this country.

Wot - Yorkshire?

North of Coventry.
Have you even traveled that far north?



Cape Wrath. Far enough for you?

On 02/05/15 21:52, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 18:46, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Huge writes:
Someone else who's never been to Versailles. It's rammed with tourists,
and
the French executed their royals hundreds of years ago, which is the
best
thing that could happen to them.

That's probably why the French* spend so much money coming
here to see our royals. They might not bother if they still
had their own.

*Americans and French being the biggest spending foreign
tourists here.

Yup and one of the main attractions is our Royal family/Buck house and
also our palaces and castles.

Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.
Keep tugging the old forelock.

You've got enough castles to visit - why do you want more?

On 03/05/15 09:32, gareth wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.

The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House.
All the others are owned by the British state.

But the British State is a monarchy.



You won't be happy until you are president. Anything less and you still
have someone with more than you telling you what to do.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 22:31, alan_m wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:45, Bod wrote:

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

Is it 62p? Have you seen the amount security that accompanies a Royal
when they turn up anywhere?

The same number of tourists would visit if we didn't have a Royal
Family. Chinese tourists appear to be bussed out on mass to out-of-town
retail outlets on trading estates.

Hmm!
"A new report today reveals that Buckingham Palace is the "dream" activity
for people in 15 out of 19 countries surveyed by tourist chiefs at Visit
Britain, including Australians, Americans, the Chinese, Italians and the
Mexicans."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-tourists.html

Only because there isn't much else worth looking at for most.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , gareth
wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.

The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham
House.
All the others are owned by the British state.

But the British State is a monarchy.

A constitutional monarchy. Not the same thing.

Au contraire, for we Brits are condemned to be second-class citizens
compared
to the rest of Europe in that we can never aspire to be head of state, and
those
who kowtow to the infestation of monarchy by becoming MPs are obliged to
swear allegiance to that desperate disease.

On Sunday, 3 May 2015 06:56:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:
I read somewhere that it can be demonsyrated the the British royal line is
discontinuous as an official father was on the crusades at the time of
conception.

So what; the royals have always had other people to do things for them.

Owain

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 23:00, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-02,
wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2015 13:55:00 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
And if we emulated the French

What would you like to emulate about the French?

Their cheese.


The French are now preferring our English cheeses, like Cheddar.

BULL****.

On 02/05/15 22:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Makes a change from Lefty crap and Climate Change eco crap anyway, for
which I Thank Kate...

With you on that one...

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

You won't be happy until you are president. Anything less and you still
have someone with more than you telling you what to do.

Completely untrue and unfounded.

What is it that compels you to contribute an argument ad hominem?

On 02/05/15 22:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously ****ed up
female.

No, I meant people liked her.

On 02/05/15 22:59, DJC wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:38, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2015 17:46:22 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
A country that aspires to being a 21st C democracy should not
have a hereditary head of state. End of debate.

What's so great about being a 21st C democracy that we should aspire
to it?
+1

Democracy: give every idiot a vote and get every idion for a government.


You only have to read the online comment section of a newspaper (any
paper, not just the DM or the Sun) to realise Chuchill had a point.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with
the average voter."

But what can you do? Democracy is right, fundamentally. And some people
really are thick.

The correct answer IMO is better education and better broadcasting
(including online and printed).

Take out the dross and make newspapers print useful info rather than
dross about who's shagging who.

But then you have a problem with "freedom of the press".

Tricky - I have no solution that ticks all the boxes...

On 03/05/15 09:28, soup wrote:
On 02/05/2015 14:12, Tim Watts wrote:
and have President Blair?
No thanks - and yes, you know it WOULD happen...

OK Rip Van, you do realise Blair was two prime ministers ago?

And you think he wouldn't pop up, even now?