Do you approve of the United Kingdom?

[Glasgia]

Waste of money? The tourism revenue is much higher.

That's nice, any proof for that? Also, while you're finding proof, perhaps you could respond to the rest of my argument?

First of all, I have just provided an example of how people do starve - Do you wish to actually address my argument, or just the bits you feel
Despite the £202,400,000 cost to the taxpayer every year - Royal figures not including a number of important factors - you still believe she isn't a waste of money?

Check the cpg grey video on the cost of the royal family. http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

CPG Grey does great in explaining things for people and I like what I've seen of his stuff, but he's not a source - He misses out quite a lot of factors, as explained here if you have ten minutes. The counter argument puts the cost at £250,000,000 - With £200,000,000 in revenue, that's a significant loss - and that's without even factoring the actual cost of the royal family. To use some of the calculations and estimates from both Republic and Forth, we're looking at a total cost of about £410,000,000 and a loss to the taxpayer of £210,000,000.

[United Kingdom of Kent]

Well it is my home and as such I have a very high opinion of her and it's all generally positive, I'd willingly fight for her. The government right now I generally approve of and pray to God labour never get into power for the next few Parliaments.

Ducit Amor Patriae

Glasgia - In reference to the above, both videos are out of date as the civil list has been removed and a new method of measuring royal funds has been implemented.

[Normandy and Picardy]

Waste of money? The tourism revenue is much higher.

That's nice, any proof for that? Also, while you're finding proof, perhaps you could respond to the rest of my argument?

Check the cpg grey video on the cost of the royal family. http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

CPG Grey does great in explaining things for people and I like what I've seen of his stuff, but he's not a source - He misses out quite a lot of factors, as explained here if you have ten minutes. The counter argument puts the cost at £250,000,000 - With £200,000,000 in revenue, that's a significant loss - and that's without even factoring the actual cost of the royal family. To use some of the calculations and estimates from both Republic and Forth, we're looking at a total cost of about £410,000,000 and a loss to the taxpayer of £210,000,000.

I must say I have never fully agreed with the monarchy, and your point is valid, but we tried a republic (The Commonwealth after Charles I was beheaded) and it didn't work. I do believe some of the royal lands should be taken away but without them our history would have been different and a lot of our landmarks wouldn't exist, even those not directly linked; well, not stonehenge but you know what I mean. I wouldn't mind if we broke even on the cost of the monarchy, but there is no need to get rid of it. Also, I would like to point out the sources you use are most likely biased towards the republican movement.

[The Nihilistic view]

Royal Family blah blah blah *quote some figures* blah blah blah express wish to vote for head of state blah blah blah state how oppressed I am by having a politically impartial unelected head of state with no power blah blah blah Liberty equality fraternity blah blah blah Fucking Cameron he's such an arsehole blah blah blah politicians are just focused on political points scoring by lying blah blah blah why can't they just act for the good of the nation.

[The Nihilistic view]

That's nice, any proof for that? Also, while you're finding proof, perhaps you could respond to the rest of my argument?



CPG Grey does great in explaining things for people and I like what I've seen of his stuff, but he's not a source - He misses out quite a lot of factors, as explained here if you have ten minutes. The counter argument puts the cost at £250,000,000 - With £200,000,000 in revenue, that's a significant loss - and that's without even factoring the actual cost of the royal family. To use some of the calculations and estimates from both Republic and Forth, we're looking at a total cost of about £410,000,000 and a loss to the taxpayer of £210,000,000.

I must say I have never fully agreed with the monarchy, and your point is valid, but we tried a republic (The Commonwealth after Charles I was beheaded) and it didn't work. I do believe some of the royal lands should be taken away but without them our history would have been different and a lot of our landmarks wouldn't exist, even those not directly linked; well, not stonehenge but you know what I mean. I wouldn't mind if we broke even on the cost of the monarchy, but there is no need to get rid of it. Also, I would like to point out the sources you use are most likely biased towards the republican movement.

The royal lands income already goes to the government. Why rob yourself?

[Sebastianbourg]

Waste of money? The tourism revenue is much higher.

That's nice, any proof for that? Also, while you're finding proof, perhaps you could respond to the rest of my argument?

Check the cpg grey video on the cost of the royal family. http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

CPG Grey does great in explaining things for people and I like what I've seen of his stuff, but he's not a source - He misses out quite a lot of factors, as explained here if you have ten minutes. The counter argument puts the cost at £250,000,000 - With £200,000,000 in revenue, that's a significant loss - and that's without even factoring the actual cost of the royal family. To use some of the calculations and estimates from both Republic and Forth, we're looking at a total cost of about £410,000,000 and a loss to the taxpayer of £210,000,000.

If you scroll down a bit through the comments section (especially the comment made by @maneatingcheeze) and you'll see why that video is wrong.

[Southern Hampshire]

Let me ask you. I'm sure you've heard of people coming to the UK to catch a glimpse of the Queen. How often have you heard of people going to the Bundestag in Berlin to eagerly photograph the German President, Joachim Gauck, who has as much political power as the Queen and has the same expenses?

So yes, revenue is higher than the cost. To think that a Republican system would bring in higher revenue or lower costs is ridiculous.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... itain.html

No, neither. Comprehensive state school(s).

Huh, you should probably know better then.

I do. Comprehensives are shite. What are you specifically referring to?

Britain has a heavy welfare system. One of the most generous in the world. People don't starve in Britain (not saying they should.) - on the contrary - we are one of the most obese nations on the planet, and statistically the poorest on welfare are those who are the most obese. We're even one of the only (5?) nations who consider obesity a disability..

First of all, I have just provided an example of how people do starve - Do you wish to actually address my argument, or just the bits you feel like?

What I understood from that article is that he was a special case away from the majority.

Meanwhile, the cheapest food is usually also the food most linked to obesity. You're actually highlighting a major problem, that people can't afford to eat healthily and therefore have to buy cheap shit that is incredibly unhealthy.

...so the solution to the problem is give even more money for welfare claimants to use in the hope they will opt for healthier choices?

Pitiful income? Hardly. What are you expecting from a STATE welfare system? You want me to pay for your cinema tickets? holidays? credit rates for a new car?

As I've said before, I'd prefer a benefits system which actually provides the basic income to keep people alive and healthy, with enough to allow them to get back on their feet and seek work again.

So are you saying people need more than they currently get in order to be alive and healthy? Exercise can be done outside and there is enough support to keep people alive, so I guess we can lower the bill?

Posh? Hardly. I guess anyone who lives in the South is 'posh' for you. Uninformed? Not at all. As someone who was on the system myself for a bit in my childhood, my parents didn't find it hard to live at all, even my first plasma was bought during that time. Fortunately they both found work after short-time unemployment.

No, I think people who are posh are posh. Sure, the south has more of those people than elsewhere but I don't wish to generalise. It's the persistence of classism in many southern communities, of economic discrimination particularly focusing upon benefit recipients. Who do you think watched shite like "Benefits Street"? I'm not applying the term to you necessarily - I have no knowledge of your personal circumstances, other than that you probably live in southern Hampshire. However, you share views with a certain group of the population and one that's not particularly pleasant.

If you think posh people are posh then there's no reason for calling me posh.

Does the South have more? Yes it does, no need to be PC about it.

What's not pleasant about my view? I support keeping people alive and healthy, housed and educated and forcing them to get a job, be it on minimum wage cleaning a McDonalds if it's needed to take them off benefits. If people aren't taking a job because they are better off on benefits, there is something wrong in the system.

There is already a fair wage for unemployed people in the UK. It is impossible to not survive on it. Whether you can live on it is another argument, but you're not supposed to live a life of luxury or middle class whilst on a welfare income.

Fucking hell, do I have to repeat myself? It's not impossible to die on it, because I've already provided an example of someone who did die.

Yes. We all see people literally dying and begging for food on the streets of London. The grumbling of stomachs is echoed around the country as the rich rejoice bathing in turkey.

With our demographics and economic structure, it is impossible to continue this generous trend.

Any proof for that, or just trying to sound like you know what you're talking about?

Yes, our population is growing older, we have low fertility rates and the current generation in primary schools will have to grow up and go into the workforce to provide for 33% of the population which will be out of work due to age, the highest ever.

[The Nihilistic view]

Who do you think watched shite like "Benefits Street"?

Mostly working class people with a job who hate "scroungers" and think 50% of immigrants are on benefits I would guess, I don't know anybody who watched "Benefits Street". I don't even know many people that know about the programme. I personally changed channels every time it came up as a topic of debate on a current affairs programmes. It is of absolutely no interest to me or the people I know. We're obviously too busy actually oppressing the working class.

[The Nihilistic view]

That's nice, any proof for that? Also, while you're finding proof, perhaps you could respond to the rest of my argument?



CPG Grey does great in explaining things for people and I like what I've seen of his stuff, but he's not a source - He misses out quite a lot of factors, as explained here if you have ten minutes. The counter argument puts the cost at £250,000,000 - With £200,000,000 in revenue, that's a significant loss - and that's without even factoring the actual cost of the royal family. To use some of the calculations and estimates from both Republic and Forth, we're looking at a total cost of about £410,000,000 and a loss to the taxpayer of £210,000,000.

If you scroll down a bit through the comments section (especially the comment made by @maneatingcheeze) and you'll see why that video is wrong.

The funny thing I found was after all of that the two examples he thinks are so much better for equality is America (look how that turned out) and that Charles stopping the even richer Qatari royal family which supports systemic human rights abuses in Qatar from building luxury flat blocks almost no Londoners could afford anyway. As if that's somehow a bad thing, as it happens there is a new plan going ahead to develop the site anyway with even less and presumably more expensive flats. So it's not the sort of development London needs, if anything we should be angry at Charles that he did not push for higher density and affordable housing to be developed on the site. Not that he thought the plans looked like shite.

[Costa Fierro]

Waste of taxpayers money

Nope. The monarchy actually provides a substantial portion of the tourism income.

Does little to improve the country

Nope.

Is based off birthrights instead of ability

Nope.

Is feudalistic and backwards

Nope.

The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.

Said power is never used. Said power is also present in "ceremonial" Presidents.

The monarchy interferes in our day-to-day political life.

Nope.

The Monarchy causes class problems.

Nope.

Makes separation of church and state impossible.

Nope.

Undermines business and is bad for tourism.

Nope.

Lacks accountability.

Various scandals would suggest otherwise.

Promotes gender and ethnic discrimination.

Nope.

Devalues achievement and intellectualism.

Nope.

Is against equality.

....and nope again. So basically, all you have done is listed a bunch of utter bullshit reasons that have no basis in fact or practice.

[Glasgia]

Costa, you're better than that - Since when has "Nope." been an acceptable way to refute a point?

Let me ask you. I'm sure you've heard of people coming to the UK to catch a glimpse of the Queen. How often have you heard of people going to the Bundestag in Berlin to eagerly photograph the German President, Joachim Gauck, who has as much political power as the Queen and has the same expenses?

So yes, revenue is higher than the cost. To think that a Republican system would bring in higher revenue or lower costs is ridiculous.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... itain.html

The German President costs German taxpayers about £26,000,000 a year, opposed to the £410,000,000 the royal family costs us. He's also notably elected democratically by the Federal Convention, rather than being chosen for popping out of the royal vagina first. Meanwhile, your price Torygraph article does nothing to refute my points.

No, neither. Comprehensive state school(s).

Huh, you should probably know better then.

I do. Comprehensives are shite. What are you specifically referring to?[/quote]

That your attitude reeks of public-school ignorance and selfishness - If you're at school with a wider range of economic classes, some of whom may be on benefits, I'd assume you'd do better than to develop such an attitude.

First of all, I have just provided an example of how people do starve - Do you wish to actually address my argument, or just the bits you feel like?

What I understood from that article is that he was a special case away from the majority.

I'm not saying the majority are going to starve. Your point was that "People don't starve in Britain", I have provided evidence that some do. Do you wish to move the goalposts again, or can we accept this as fact and move on?

Meanwhile, the cheapest food is usually also the food most linked to obesity. You're actually highlighting a major problem, that people can't afford to eat healthily and therefore have to buy cheap shit that is incredibly unhealthy.

...so the solution to the problem is give even more money for welfare claimants to use in the hope they will opt for healthier choices?

Give them enough to afford it and the incentives to eat it. Limited employment of a food-voucher system would be enough, alongside basic payments to cover other costs.

As I've said before, I'd prefer a benefits system which actually provides the basic income to keep people alive and healthy, with enough to allow them to get back on their feet and seek work again.

So are you saying people need more than they currently get in order to be alive and healthy? Exercise can be done outside and there is enough support to keep people alive, so I guess we can lower the bill?

"Alive and healthy" doesn't just refer to a jog every morning. It means putting people in a stable financial position from which they can look for work, with a stable frame of mind and then preferably a healthy lifestyle to sustain this when they find work again.

No, I think people who are posh are posh. Sure, the south has more of those people than elsewhere but I don't wish to generalise. It's the persistence of classism in many southern communities, of economic discrimination particularly focusing upon benefit recipients. Who do you think watched shite like "Benefits Street"? I'm not applying the term to you necessarily - I have no knowledge of your personal circumstances, other than that you probably live in southern Hampshire. However, you share views with a certain group of the population and one that's not particularly pleasant.

If you think posh people are posh then there's no reason for calling me posh.

Does the South have more? Yes it does, no need to be PC about it.

What's not pleasant about my view? I support keeping people alive and healthy, housed and educated and forcing them to get a job, be it on minimum wage cleaning a McDonalds if it's needed to take them off benefits. If people aren't taking a job because they are better off on benefits, there is something wrong in the system.

I never called you posh - "you share views with a certain group of the population", and it's them who aren't particularly pleasant not you or your views. Perhaps, once you get rid of your ignorance, you could also look for a basic education in English so you can understand what others are saying to you.

Fucking hell, do I have to repeat myself? It's not impossible to die on it, because I've already provided an example of someone who did die.

Yes. We all see people literally dying and begging for food on the streets of London. The grumbling of stomachs is echoed around the country as the rich rejoice bathing in turkey.

Are you blind, stupid or in denial? Yes, we do see people begging for food on the streets of London because they're trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty.

Any proof for that, or just trying to sound like you know what you're talking about?

Yes, our population is growing older, we have low fertility rates and the current generation in primary schools will have to grow up and go into the workforce to provide for 33% of the population which will be out of work due to age, the highest ever.

And would you like to provide the data that shows why "it is impossible to continue this generous trend" or are you just spouting largely un-consequential bullshit? Though the population is ageing, the figure you're talking about is closer to twenty-five percent and will be diminished by a rising retirement age.

[Pesda]

No. I think it should cease to exist.

[Norfolk and Suffolk]

I think the UK is far too diverse of an island to be one nation.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Could be better, could be worse. Hated some of the Brits I've met, quite liked others.

I root for England to lose in football and cricket constantly, of course.

[Lunas Legion]

Could be better, could be worse. Hated some of the Brits I've met, quite liked others.

I root for England to lose in football and cricket constantly, of course.

We're doomed to constantly lose in football. Cricket is another matter, however.

[Costa Fierro]

Costa, you're better than that - Since when has "Nope." been an acceptable way to refute a point?

It's not worth any more of my time on it. Nope is about the extent of the effort I'm willing to invest in it.

[Costa Fierro]

No. I think it should cease to exist.

For what reasons?

[Pesda]

No. I think it should cease to exist.

For what reasons?

So that my country can become independent, as is normal for other countires. So that I am no longer expected to adopt a national identity invented for me so that my rulers can justify their control over my country. So that I don't have to suffer the bad political decisions made by those rulers.

[Sebastianbourg]

For what reasons?

So that my country can become independent, as is normal for other countires. So that I am no longer expected to adopt a national identity invented for me so that my rulers can justify their control over my country. So that I don't have to suffer the bad political decisions made by those rulers.

You've been listening to Plaid propaganda haven't you?

[Costa Fierro]

For what reasons?

So that my country can become independent, as is normal for other countires. So that I am no longer expected to adopt a national identity invented for me so that my rulers can justify their control over my country. So that I don't have to suffer the bad political decisions made by those rulers.

And which of the four countries do you live in?

[Sebastianbourg]

So that my country can become independent, as is normal for other countires. So that I am no longer expected to adopt a national identity invented for me so that my rulers can justify their control over my country. So that I don't have to suffer the bad political decisions made by those rulers.

And which of the four countries do you live in?

Wales I believe.

[Pesda]

So that my country can become independent, as is normal for other countires. So that I am no longer expected to adopt a national identity invented for me so that my rulers can justify their control over my country. So that I don't have to suffer the bad political decisions made by those rulers.

You've been listening to Plaid propaganda haven't you?

I do get e-mails from them

[Pesda]

And which of the four countries do you live in?

Wales I believe.

Correct.

[The Nihilistic view]

For what reasons?

So that my country can become independent, as is normal for other countires. So that I am no longer expected to adopt a national identity invented for me so that my rulers can justify their control over my country. So that I don't have to suffer the bad political decisions made by those rulers.

So you want to be Roman?

[Pesda]

So that my country can become independent, as is normal for other countires. So that I am no longer expected to adopt a national identity invented for me so that my rulers can justify their control over my country. So that I don't have to suffer the bad political decisions made by those rulers.

So you want to be Roman?

Please do explain. I think I will enjoy.