Off Topic Messages

Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:49 pm

ColinB wrote:I resent even a fraction of my taxes going to support these privileged, pampered, wealthy parasites.


Nice use of alliteration Mr B :D I can see you aren't a fan :) Personally, I just can't get worked up about it either way.

Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:44 am

ColinB wrote:TJ -

You wrote:
I'm fairly indifferent, but given the choice would keep the monarchy. It's not like we would really gain anything from removing this essentially symbolic tradition. Besides, there is a place for tradition in society isn't there? The monarchy wields no real power now - or at least exerts none -so it doesn't interrupt our system of democracy in any way. Some point to the economic argument, but in reality the civil list costs us pittance in the grand scheme of things. I'm also pretty confident that our tourist industry benefits from the monarchy remaining in place.


How about letting them continue, but in a private capacity ?

In other words, at no cost to the public purse !

My bet is that they would accept that.

I resent even a fraction of my taxes going to support these privileged, pampered, wealthy parasites.


Colin -
That is reason enough for you to resent the Monarchy. I don't blame you! Would your idea of stopping the public funding gain support in Parliament?

Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:44 am

Colin wrote:
Did you know that our Prince Charles actually has a flunkey who has to put his toothpaste on his toothbrush for him before he enters the bathroom each morning ?

And there is hell to pay if it isn't done !


You forgot to mention the poor other flunky who spends his days within the confines of the bathroom caring for the Royal Buttocks.

Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:49 am

EagleUSA wrote:Colin wrote:
Did you know that our Prince Charles actually has a flunkey who has to put his toothpaste on his toothbrush for him before he enters the bathroom each morning ?

And there is hell to pay if it isn't done !


You forgot to mention the poor other flunky who spends his days within the confines of the bathroom caring for the Royal Buttocks.


Eagle -
You are of course referring to the Royal A$$wipe. Seems like a pretty redundant position to me - seeing as how Charles already fills that role!

Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:09 am

Eagle/Pete -

You are straying into the realms of fantasy.

The toothpaste bit is actually true !

Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:25 am

Colin:

How do you know that the royal barking spider is not polished by a, er, Butler? If Prince Charles cannot face applying his own toothpaste, how on earth could he stand to wipe his own chuff? Of course, Kings and Queens in history all had their rusty sheriff's badges cleaned by a flunky - when did this practice stop? I want to know. Who was the last servant to say "I'd lay off the fried egg sandwiches, Your Majesty," and to whom?

Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:02 am

Stephen Butler wrote:Colin:

How do you know that the royal barking spider is not polished by a, er, Butler? If Prince Charles cannot face applying his own toothpaste, how on earth could he stand to wipe his own chuff? Of course, Kings and Queens in history all had their rusty sheriff's badges cleaned by a flunky - when did this practice stop? I want to know. Who was the last servant to say "I'd lay off the fried egg sandwiches, Your Majesty," and to whom?


:lol: Classic Stephen classic!

Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:56 pm

LMFAO at Stephen!!! :lol:

Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:19 pm

Stephen,

Back in the day, Royal marmite motorway maintenance was a job for the priviliged! It was also highly paid. In fact, the morning after a Royal curry servants were desperate for the job as it paid ten shillings and thruppence......unheard of at the time! One post-vindaloo wipe a week was enough to keep a family of six fed for a month. However, if the back door butler was not around the missus had to do it........which probably explains why Diana left! :(

Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:33 am

I can see it now: Charles has evacuated his royal bowels, and is ready for his crack cleaning. He summons the royal a$$wipe and assumes the position.

A$$wipe: I say your majesty, there is a ring around your anus!

Charles: Will you just get on with it you dolt! If I want a lesson in cosmology I'll watch Cosmos re-runs. And the ring is around Saturn you blithering idiot!

A$$wipe: No, no your majesty. There is a ring around YOUR anus! Right THERE! (A$$wipe probes ring none-too-gently with his finger - and he's in need of a manicure.)

Charles: OOOOOUUUUUUUUUWWWWWWWCCCCHHHHHH!

Upon hearing Charles' bellow of pain Camilla rushes into the room.

Camilla: Charles dear, are you all right?

Charles (gasping): A$$wipe ..... ring around your anus ....... probe.

Camilla: You have got some nerve calling me an a$$wipe you in-bred bastard! The ring is around Saturn you blithering idiot!

Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:26 pm

Uh...that would be Arse Wipe in the local lingo, old chap.

:lol:

Jules

Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:53 pm

I do believe in the old lingo it would be "Arse Whype" :lol:

Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:36 am

Delboy:

It probably won't astonish you to learn that I hadn't realised that this was such a sought-after job. I mean, what were to happen if, say, Prince Charles suffered from piles and the Royal jacksy was being cleaned a little too, shall we say, enthusiastically? You would be able to hear the screams from Sandringham to Balmoral.

And what with Charles eating all that organic shite, well, I'll leave the rest to your imagination. But it won't be pretty.

Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:25 pm

Are they still here? Aside from the New York "elite". no one gave a flying crap about them being here.

btw ColinB, sue wasn't saying Arold was from England, she just wanted Charles and Horsehead to remove him from her state. He might as well leave as sue's fellow statemen have given the Governator NO tools in which to fix the golden state's numerous fiscal problems. They need to elect David Copperfield next, because they expect Arnold to have a magic wand up his arse.

Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:36 pm

The tired argument is that they bring a lot of tourists into the country - although i'm sure people come to see the buildings rather than hoping to catch a glimpse of the queen weeding her front lawn!

It's acutally against the law to print anything which suggests Britain becoming a republic. The Guardian newspaper wanted to run a series about replacing the monarchy but couldn't get assurance they would not be prosecuted under some act from about 1860! Maybe even writing this is illegal - if you don't hear from me again i'll be in the tower!!!

Andrew

Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:40 pm

Pete -

You wrote:
Colin -
That is reason enough for you to resent the Monarchy.
I don't blame you!
Would your idea of stopping the public funding gain support in Parliament?


Given time.

They've already lost some of their cosy tax perks.

For me, it boils down to a simple question:

Should ordinary working people have to subsidise the ultra-rich ?

Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:22 pm

Who would present the FA cup - or the trophies at Wimbledon. Surely ordinary members of society aren't trained in this art?

Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:33 pm

ColinB wrote:Should ordinary working people have to subsidise the ultra-rich ?


Absolutely and unequivocally not.

Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:19 pm

ColinB wrote: Should ordinary working people have to subsidise the ultra-rich?

Stephen Butler wrote: Absolutely and unequivocally not.


I agree with you both....and, vice-versa!!!! :wink:

The rich have no obligation to subsidize the working people.
Last edited by EagleUSA on Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:02 pm

I agree with this:

Ordinary working people should have to subsidise the ultra-rich.

Absolutely and unequivocally.


:lol:

Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:16 am

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!

Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:39 am

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!


Which, Scotch, Arnold - being ultra-rich - IS trying to do to us ordinary working people!! He promised to "fix" our problems, but NOT by letting him become the "king" of California. The state elects not only the governor, but also legislators and judges. His measure would have made his word the final law with NO checks from our other elected officials. I have much more confidence in the voting public now because they rejected ALL of the propositions!! The one about adjusting tenure from 2 to 5 years was ridiculous!! This simply gives a "bad" teacher 3 more years to teach!! I have seen some "good" teachers not given fair treatment because of the way they looked. Principals have a LOT of power. They DO get rid of bad teachers. Arnold did take 2 billion dollars from a fund that I contributed to and then refused to return it. I do NOT consider this fair or funny!! It jeopardizes my retirement fund - which, yes, I do worry about!! This does not even address the firefighters and the nurses - people we all rely on!!
sue

Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:00 am

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.

Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:08 am

TJ -

Yes, there are lots of things which seem pretty low-cost if you spread the figure across the population as a whole.

But I tend to think "How many nurses or teachers would that have paid for ?"

Rather than:

"Well, it hasn't cost me much, personally ?"

Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:35 pm

ColinB wrote:TJ -

Yes, there are lots of things which seem pretty low-cost if you spread the figure across the population as a whole.

But I tend to think "How many nurses or teachers would that have paid for ?"

Rather than:

"Well, it hasn't cost me much, personally ?"


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. It seems that every time someone thinks funds are misplaced, the "what about teachers and nurses?" line is dragged out. As you know, this Government has already made enormous increases in funding for both health and education. If either were being financially neglected, I'd probably be more likely to join the chorus of disapproval for funds going elsewhere.