Off Topic Messages

Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:54 am

TJ -

You wrote:
I don't view issues purely from a "how do they affect me?" vantage point Colin.
I was merely reacting to the overused "my tax dollars" sentiment.
Yes abolishment of the Civil list would free up funds for other things, but that can be said of any non-vital, publicy funded institution/initiative.
It doesn't mean they should all be scrapped.


I didn't actually say you did view things like that, sorry if you thought I was making that implication.

Yes, it can be said that scrapping other non-vital things would free up cash.

But even though they are non-essential, they are totally dependent on government funding.

The royals aren't !

They could easily be self-financing.

Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:47 am

ColinB wrote:TJ -

You wrote:
I don't view issues purely from a "how do they affect me?" vantage point Colin.
I was merely reacting to the overused "my tax dollars" sentiment.
Yes abolishment of the Civil list would free up funds for other things, but that can be said of any non-vital, publicy funded institution/initiative.
It doesn't mean they should all be scrapped.


I didn't actually say you did view things like that, sorry if you thought I was making that implication.

Yes, it can be said that scrapping other non-vital things would free up cash.

But even though they are non-essential, they are totally dependent on government funding.

The royals aren't !

They could easily be self-financing.


And in part they are. While they perform a public function, they are partly funded by the public purse though. Hmm, I wonder if Charles would agree to being removed from the Civil list if he never had to meet another foreign dignitary, open another shopping centre or witness another tribal welcome dance? :)

Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:57 am

TJ -

They love all the attention they get !

They thrive on all that forelock tugging and bowing and scraping !

If the government said, look, you can carry on as usual, but no more civil list cash, it's all coming out of your own pockets, they wouldn't stop doing what they do, would they ?

Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:09 pm

TJ wrote:T
Pete Dube wrote:I think Colin's point is simply this: The ultra-rich being subsidized by ordinary working people equates to ordinary working people being sodomized by the ultra-rich!

Look my fellow Americans, if it was our country this was happening in we'd be storming the Bastille!

Heck I'm pissed that some of my tax dollars are going to the red carpet treatment for Charles In Charge and Magilla Camilla!


Yeah, think of all the things you could have done with that 0.001 cents the Government could have saved you :wink: That's one of the reasons I can't get into a sweat about the issue over here though. It costs us a pound or two each per year, so I hardly feel, er, sodomized.



TJ -
It's not so much the cost, as it is the principal that some object to.

Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:14 pm

Pete -

It's the £510,000 it has cost the UK tax-payers which I object to !

That figure has appeared in our media today as the bill we footed for their US trip.

Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:11 pm

Colin wrote: It's the £510,000 it has cost the UK tax-payers which I object to !


Hell...For that kind of money, they each could have partied for 24 hours at New York City's "Scores."