Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 10:23 pm
by pickwell paving
lutonlagerlout wrote:off to skegness butlins for a 27 man stag do next weekend hic
LLL 
Not far from me LLL I live about 20 mins from skegness, we finished 2 jobs on thursday after doing 7 day weeks for I don't know how long, took the missus and kids away for the weekend and spent the whole time ill so came back early just getting better ready to go back to work.
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 10:31 pm
by lutonlagerlout
not mabelthorpe are ya?
got a few mates from that way
we were gonna hire boats on the norfolk broads but good sense prevailed
3 of the lads have their captain's license,
they bought a bought about 10 years ago and managed to get drunk and sink the boat,twice
i like to be wet inside and dry outside
IYKWIM
LLL :;):
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 10:36 pm
by Pablo
lutonlagerlout wrote:£90mill for security for the royal wedding yet schools are being shut hehe i am being devil's advocate here
You've missed a decimal point Tony it didn't cost anywhere close to that and by the end of the day the taxman was in profit due to all the money getting spent that wouldn't otherwise have been. Also half of America is probably booking holidays over the pond as we speak. I'm not a royalist but they are our countries best financial investment no business in the land gives a financial return on their investment that comes close to the money we make from them.
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 10:39 pm
by pickwell paving
No not Mablethorpe a village called Coningsby, did anyone watch that dambusters programme on c4 earlier? Part of that was filmed just down the road from me where the dambusters were based. Hope the stag weekend goes well. :p
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 12:12 am
by lutonlagerlout
Pablo wrote:lutonlagerlout wrote:£90mill for security for the royal wedding yet schools are being shut hehe i am being devil's advocate here
You've missed a decimal point Tony it didn't cost anywhere close to that and by the end of the day the taxman was in profit due to all the money getting spent that wouldn't otherwise have been. Also half of America is probably booking holidays over the pond as we speak. I'm not a royalist but they are our countries best financial investment no business in the land gives a financial return on their investment that comes close to the money we make from them.
link pls pablo
i spoke to the assistant manager in fortnum and masons and asked had the yanks come out in force and his succinct answer was "no"
theres no point telling the whole nation we are cutting everything and you will jolly well have to suffer it ,when we are then expected to cough up for renta royals to have a big day out
I like the royal family,but if i have to pay my way ,then surely they should too?
tell me what the difference is between them and gadaffis family?
or any other unelected leader that creams it off his/her people
(devils advocate again hehe)
LLL
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 1:00 am
by GB_Groundworks
£20m is the figure I've read the most, middletons cost was about £250k
Paste
When the individual cost of the public is revealed, focus can then turn towards the public’s possible return of investment from the wedding. Not only will it inject £620 million into the U.K. economy (predominately through tourism), it will more importantly and ironically help towards relieving the public’s all too familiar monetary hardship – maybe not completely in the financial context, but certainly in relation to the extensively dwindling optimism of U.K. society as a whole.
From
http://www.financial-news.co.uk/2389....cost-us
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 4:28 pm
by henpecked
GB_Groundworks wrote:maybe not completely in the financial context, but certainly in relation to the extensively dwindling optimism of U.K. society as a whole.
I think this is the crux of the whole exercise.
We have the Olympics around the corner, Old Phils 90th, Queens Golden Jubilee, so its a away to get the 'feel good' factor back in to GB (the country 
)
Every man and his dog (as I know) have had a good old ball kicking over the past two years, most have money in the bank but are too scared to spend it, a bit of national momentum is the best way to say 'sod the past' and forge a new decade.
Personally, I think the Royals are good value (thats from a son of Dublin,too) they create an aspirational illusion for all these sand pit dwelling fruit cakes :p :p
Hp
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 4:59 pm
by rab1
I agree with Hen, ok they cost us money but they make us more money.
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 5:39 pm
by lutonlagerlout
henpecked wrote:they create an aspirational illusion for all these sand pit dwelling fruit cakes :p :p
Hp
what showing us look what you can get by birth not by endeavour,intellect or artistry?
I have no issues with the richard bransons and alan sugars of the world , but why people by birth should be given a lifetime of luxury paid for by those who can ill afford it is beyond me
I do like the royal family but paying them when they are the biggest landowners in the uk seems a historical oddity to me?
i dont know about you fellas but is a depressing day when you finally come to the realisation that you will never play football for England(scotland whoever) never be famous,and last but least never be stinking rich :;):
LLL
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 8:23 pm
by Pablo
lutonlagerlout wrote:what showing us look what you can get by birth not by endeavour,intellect or artistry?
I have no issues with the richard bransons and alan sugars of the world , but why people by birth should be given a lifetime of luxury paid for by those who can ill afford it is beyond me
I do like the royal family but paying them when they are the biggest landowners in the uk seems a historical oddity to me?
i dont know about you fellas but is a depressing day when you finally come to the realisation that you will never play football for England(scotland whoever) never be famous,and last but least never be stinking rich :;):
LLL
Yes it is depressing I'm going through that stage just now which is why I bid on a 67 Fastback mustang after a bottle of wine last week on ebay I'm such a tit.
With regards the royals you're incorrect on many counts they are not even close to being the biggest landowners in the UK. That mantle is reserved for the MOD followed by the police (all those stations soon adds up) and the largest private owner is the Burton family who own most of the central belt of the Highlands coast to coast.
With regards them being our leader they certainly aren't they cannot make a single decision on behalf of the country their position is one of ceremony only.
With regards them being born into wealth it's no different to me being born with better looks than you it's the luck of the draw so get over it.
I don't have a link to back up my post about the cost of the wedding but a few simple calculations gets me in and around it and I'm sure I heard that bandied about before the day. If you think about it the police are salaried and so are the military and household staff the only diffence being the police get overtime so that money was spent regardless of their task and shouldn't be included in the overall total. 5000 officers earing on average £200 extra is only £1million the millitarys contribution would have been in fuel and energy only and most personnel were London based. When you count in the money earned from selling the broadcasting rights and renting out all the best spots and that temporary scaffold studio I bet they were already in profit.
No personal items such as clothes etc were paid out of the public purse but catering was.
The nation owes it's entire existance to the monarchy regardless of how it came about and would be culturally and economically a lot poorer if they were gone or downgraded.
They are also just about the only thing that commands respect for Britain on the world stage we'd be crazy to get rid of them and they only cost each taxpayer less than a pound a year but are worth many hundreds of millions to us.
The very worst investment our nation has is the f*cking Olympics we'll not even come close to breaking even and the only benefactors are the already wealthier south east. We're all paying a lot more for that than we do for the royals and we'll see no benifit to our lives or pockets whatsoever. Stuff like that are the real waste of taxpayers money.
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:00 pm
by lutonlagerlout
I more or less agree pablo but it still rankles
I'm not sure which way i lean politically but i guess I am to the right of hitler and to the left of tony benn on other issues
the IOC and FIFA are so corrupt that their sanctioning of an event means that a country just lined itself up to be mugged off
a black cab driver told me he witnessed teh police going in mobhanded to soho square and beating hell out of a protest theatre group,blood everywhere
55 arrests but only 5 charged hmmm whys that i wonder?
we talk about people's rights in Libya and egypt but our own freedom of speech is gradually being eroded in the name of security
as ben franklin said "those prepared to give up liberty in the name of security ,deserve neither"
while i am on my mad one ,why do you think we are bombing Libya? human rights pfft my arse!
oil and because we can
china, indonesia,saudi arabi, and turkey commit far worse human rights abuses than gadaffi ever did
we are not bombing them are we? no cojones
and as for laden,he could and should have been captured and left to rot in gaol,executing him is stooping down to his own level,mind you we are talking the yanks here
when bill clinton came to power he ordered the execution of ricky ray rector, a man so mentally disabled that he told the guard who served him his last meal of pecan pie that he was
" saving some for later"
It would be interesting to know what really happened in that compound ,but i doubt we will ever know
rant over
:;):
LLL
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:16 pm
by Pablo
Totally argree about Libya we've been caught out big time now Syria et al are kicking off and doing exactly what Gaddafi did. It's all about oil how often have we said that over the last decade.
With regards our rights yes they could be better but they could be massively worse so I'm happy for the police the beat the odd crusty new age type up now and again especially those anarchists who are mainly toffs on their gap year. Try engaging with police in America Canada and a lot of Europe for that matter and you'll soon realise that ours aren't that bad by comparison. I think we as a nation don't get to bad a deal all things considered compared to most other similar nations.
The death penalty is beyond counter productive and totally ineffective infact the whole penal sytem is I can't believe they as christians still endorse it.
Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:27 pm
by lutonlagerlout
amen to that...
LLL
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 12:17 am
by GB_Groundworks
I wrote a big bit about it's not about oil etc as we bought off gadhafi he spent on terrorist Lamborghini jeeps and appressing ppl so if we buy off the populist uprising they can't be worse might spend it on schools health care and progress can't be worse etc but iPad lost it all 
As for royals
Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the monarch to parliament at the beginning of each reign; all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament. In the 2003-04 fiscal year, the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, where the Head of State Expenditure was £36 million. The Head of State Expenditure does not include the cost of security.
Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year.
Only some members of the Royal Family carry out public duties; these individuals receive an annual payment known as a Parliamentary Annuity, the funds being supplied to cover office costs.
* The Duke of York: £249,000 per annum
* The Earl and Countess of Wessex: £141,000 per annum
* The Princess Royal: £228,000 per annum
* The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester: £175,000 per annum
* The Duke and Duchess of Kent: £236,000 per annum
* Princess Alexandra £225,000 per annum
These amounts are repaid by The Queen from her private funds.
Though always voluntarily subject to the Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, the Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1992, although the details of this arrangement are both voluntary and secret. At the same time it was announced that only the Queen and Prince Philip would receive civil list payments. Since 1993 the Queen's personal income has been taxed as any other Briton. The Queen's private estate (eg shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, however bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt. [2]
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 9:43 pm
by London Stone Paving
I wonder what would happen if David Cameron stood up and had the balls to admit that the reason we went into Libya was for the oil and nothing else. I've still got this romantic naive notion of one day having politicians who tell the truth and say it how it is.
Wouldn't that be a fine thing, or would it?
I dont really care if we went in for the oil but it would be nice to hear the truth. Or maybe the public could not handle the truth.
There was no way Bin Laden could ever have been taken alive. It would have cost billions of pounds to bring him to trial that would have turned into a farce. You would get every wanabee terrorist, pirate whatever hijacking planes and kidnapping people in return for Bin ladens freedom. Also he deserved to die, I dont celebrate or rejoice in it but it needed to be done.