Britain's biggest heist!!!

Off Topic Messages

Moderators: Moderator5, Moderator3, FECC-Moderator, Site Mechanic



Pete Dube
Posts: 7712
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: South Carolina
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 530 times

#245766

Post by Pete Dube »

ColinB wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:We'd be better off talking to Camilla and shagging his plants.
I'm a little tired of people [who don't even live here] slagging off our lovely royal family...............

This is to rectify things:

Image
Colin -
I actually wrote 'He'd be better off .....' not 'We'd be better off .....' I don't know about you, but I've no desire to talk to Camilla or shag plants. But what would a plant shagger be, a hortasexual? And would a plant that shags for money be a hore?



User avatar

ColinB
Posts: 29384
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: Gravesend, UK
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 101 times
Contact:

#245803

Post by ColinB »

Pete -

Sorry, I was editing the post to leave just your bit and took a letter too many out, then replaced it with the wrong one !

I think I'd sooner have that horse than the real Camilla !


Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire

User avatar

TJ
Posts: 7144
Registered for: 19 years 9 months
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 858 times
Contact:

#245847

Post by TJ »

Scatter wrote:
ColinB wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
....maybe it's time to give the royals a royal flush. The money used to support the royals can then be used to support the people.
The monarchy is an outmoded dinosaur which needs sorting out.

How about this:

Let them carry on, but at no expense to the public purse.

No civil list, they pay their own way and are taxed on their massive income, just like the rest of us.

That way, they'd still be there as a tourist attraction, but the working population wouldn't be subsidising a fabulously rich family.

.
Now that sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution.......hasn't that solution ever been brought before the voting public??

If some want to keep that anachronistic institution for nostalgia's sake, fine. But why would anyone choose to subsidize a family whose wealth already rivals that of any family on earth, while some others go hungry??
The rationale is that they perform duties for the state, so are paid by the state I guess. They could go it alone, but I doubt they would then have any interest in entertaining foreign dignitaries etc.




Scatter
Posts: 2666
Registered for: 19 years 10 months
Location: Palm Beach Fl

#245861

Post by Scatter »

The rationale is that they perform duties for the state, so are paid by the state I guess. They could go it alone, but I doubt they would then have any interest in entertaining foreign dignitaries etc.
Well my friend.........what does THAT tell you about the the cast of "Deliverance".......er, The Royal Family.



User avatar

ColinB
Posts: 29384
Registered for: 20 years 11 months
Location: Gravesend, UK
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 101 times
Contact:

#245993

Post by ColinB »

TJ wrote:The rationale is that they perform duties for the state, so are paid by the state I guess.
They could go it alone, but I doubt they would then have any interest in entertaining foreign dignitaries etc.
But that's my point.

They love all the bowing & scraping, the forelock tugging, the kow-towing, the ass-licking and the attention that their privileged position gives them.

So much so, that they'd do it for nothing !

With all they've got, the 'salary' means very little.


Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Post Reply