|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 1, 2022 22:08:39 GMT
Always love it when people reject the establishment then turn up to the dole queue for the establishment handouts. Always love it when people turn their anger on benefit cheats and those on benefits when we have a Royal Family full of entitled spongers…….
|
|
|
Post by retrostoke on Mar 1, 2022 22:12:37 GMT
Just putting the information into the conversation bud, they cost us next to nothing compared to other areas where more money could be saved. Get lazy arsed back to work (obviously not those who cannot work) and we’d all be much better off. Also the monarchy as others have said bring lots of money etc to the UK. Do they pay business rates, NI, the same income tax as the rest of us, capital gains tax? If your castle burned down would the taxpayer shell out to rebuild it, £70m in todays money? If you are broken into do thepolice come to your assistance? Who knows the security and policing costs of the monarchy? Who pays for their trips in their own plane, own ship, fleet of Bentleys, why have so many palaces and castles, do they pay council tax? Who pays for all the fancy dress and fake medals, who pays for the Queen's birthday, you would think she has enough riches and one birthday was enough, who pays for all the fancy dress of outdated military uniforms, people dressingup in wierd hats, where is all this costed? But aside from the monetary aspect, what of the morality of the outdated system, that requires no qualificatins, certifications, market tested abilities and talent while being granted obscene riches for doing no work other than cutting ribbons and pulling chords to unveil plaques. And you hear this over and over from fawning monarchists, that people only visit this country because of The Royals. Where is the proof of this money they generate. Most of the tacky souveniers are made in China. In a free democratic meritocracy (not saying we completely have that) what is the relevance and point of a monarchy? Why no privatise them and then you can opt in or opt out of being a subject, let them stand on their own like everyone else but if someone want to worship thm as celebreties then they're free to do so and free not to. IPO the assets, subject buy shares, revenue raised can go towards national debt, those that love them can be shareholders, Royals get a payrise, Andrew back on payroll to earn revenue from his non-sweating freak show, that that don;t buy the unfairness of a monarchy get to opt out, everyone wins! How much is "lots" that they allegedly bring in, only they never put a figure on that, or the costs? Was it really worth all that typing. I got bored after the first sentence
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Mar 1, 2022 22:13:00 GMT
Always love it when people reject the establishment then turn up to the dole queue for the establishment handouts. Always love it when people turn their anger on benefit cheats and those on benefits when we have a Royal Family full of entitled spongers……. No excuses for benefit cheats mate...especially if they're Scousers
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 1, 2022 22:15:41 GMT
Just putting the information into the conversation bud, they cost us next to nothing compared to other areas where more money could be saved. Get lazy arsed back to work (obviously not those who cannot work) and we’d all be much better off. Also the monarchy as others have said bring lots of money etc to the UK. Do they pay business rates, NI, the same income tax as the rest of us, capital gains tax? If your castle burned down would the taxpayer shell out to rebuild it, £70m in todays money? If you are broken into do thepolice come to your assistance? Who knows the security and policing costs of the monarchy? Who pays for their trips in their own plane, own ship, fleet of Bentleys, why have so many palaces and castles, do they pay council tax? Who pays for all the fancy dress and fake medals, who pays for the Queen's birthday, you would think she has enough riches and one birthday was enough, who pays for all the fancy dress of outdated military uniforms, people dressingup in wierd hats, where is all this costed? But aside from the monetary aspect, what of the morality of the outdated system, that requires no qualificatins, certifications, market tested abilities and talent while being granted obscene riches for doing no work other than cutting ribbons and pulling chords to unveil plaques. And you hear this over and over from fawning monarchists, that people only visit this country because of The Royals. Where is the proof of this money they generate. Most of the tacky souveniers are made in China. In a free democratic meritocracy (not saying we completely have that) what is the relevance and point of a monarchy? Why no privatise them and then you can opt in or opt out of being a subject, let them stand on their own like everyone else but if someone want to worship thm as celebreties then they're free to do so and free not to. IPO the assets, subject buy shares, revenue raised can go towards national debt, those that love them can be shareholders, Royals get a payrise, Andrew back on payroll to earn revenue from his non-sweating freak show, that that don;t buy the unfairness of a monarchy get to opt out, everyone wins! How much is "lots" that they allegedly bring in, only they never put a figure on that, or the costs? The cost was explained, £1.29 per tax payer per year. The infrastructure would be unaffordable for almost anyone else and would fall into disrepair and we’d lose our heritage. I don’t get this modern hatred for the monarchy, we are the envy of many republics/countries. Regarding proof of the benefits they bring, I don’t know, but I’m sure there’s some evidence out there if you look. We seem to have a very recent culture/trend of people feeling hard done to who want to do away with English/British heritage and that seems quite sad.
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Mar 1, 2022 22:18:58 GMT
Well I am by no means a royalist, but a little bit of fact checking is in order. The Monarchy receives from the public purse circa 70 Million GBP Tourism associated to the Monarchy brings in circa 2 Billion GBP All figures pre pandemic of course. With regards to a certain member of that family how it was paid is not public knowledge just speculation it is tax payers picking up the bill, however most analyst have claimed it is paid out of the queens estates revenue, which she also by the way pays full taxation on. I haven't lived in the UK for 22 years now but the blindness to the value of the family is incredible, one last fact the majority (pre pandemic) of tourism came from that nation where there kicked us out and have no real history themselves so they spend their hard earns dollars coming to the UK to experience the Monarchy and it's history. How is the alleged £2bn calculated? Do they ask every tourist for their primary reason for visiting UK? Even with all other costs and their benefits excluded that they get £70m loose change, what is the real cost when the other benefits and costs are included? Then add on the payments yielded from assets given to them that will always have the State to fall back on. What about the cost to the environment of their wasteful opulence? If it could be shown that the real cost of this unjust system was £1bn and the real gain from tourists flying over to get a glimpse of the royals was only £0.2bn then what would Royalists then use to justify them in the 21st century. Why don't they simply stand for election?
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 1, 2022 22:22:36 GMT
Well I am by no means a royalist, but a little bit of fact checking is in order. The Monarchy receives from the public purse circa 70 Million GBP Tourism associated to the Monarchy brings in circa 2 Billion GBP All figures pre pandemic of course. With regards to a certain member of that family how it was paid is not public knowledge just speculation it is tax payers picking up the bill, however most analyst have claimed it is paid out of the queens estates revenue, which she also by the way pays full taxation on. I haven't lived in the UK for 22 years now but the blindness to the value of the family is incredible, one last fact the majority (pre pandemic) of tourism came from that nation where there kicked us out and have no real history themselves so they spend their hard earns dollars coming to the UK to experience the Monarchy and it's history. How is the alleged £2bn calculated? Do they ask every tourist for their primary reason for visiting UK? Even with all other costs and their benefits excluded that they get £70m loose change, what is the real cost when the other benefits and costs are included? Then add on the payments yielded from assets given to them that will always have the State to fall back on. What about the cost to the environment of their wasteful opulence? If it could be shown that the real cost of this unjust system was £1bn and the real gain from tourists flying over to get a glimpse of the royals was only £0.2bn then what would Royalists then use to justify them in the 21st century. Why don't they simply stand for election? The cost to the environment? The Queen owns most of the land in the country, much of which is national parks etc. I get the issue with their private travel arrangements but that’s the same for every leader (private jets/cars etc)
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Mar 1, 2022 22:28:57 GMT
Always love it when people reject the establishment then turn up to the dole queue for the establishment handouts. That's right. They blame those on Universal Credit £64.50/week handouts, while the ribbon cutters get £1.5m/week. Then they will accuse a republican of being a Marxist. The they will put forward a claim that an alternative to this unelected head of state Hitler or Putin or Trump or others that it is clear are ridiculous alternaives without even seeing to irony that even a twat like Trump was elected. I think thy produce these fake arguments because they don't have any real ones. They will then close down the debate labelling you a traitor.
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Mar 1, 2022 22:33:57 GMT
Always love it when people reject the establishment then turn up to the dole queue for the establishment handouts. That's right. They blame those on Universal Credit £64.50/week handouts, while the ribbon cutters get £1.5m/week. Then they will accuse a republican of being a Marxist. The they will put forward a claim that an alternative to this unelected head of state Hitler or Putin or Trump or others that it is clear are ridiculous alternaives without even seeing to irony that even a twat like Trump was elected. I think thy produce these fake arguments because they don't have any real ones. They will then close down the debate labelling you a traitor. Traitor! Gouranga.
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 1, 2022 22:36:19 GMT
Always love it when people reject the establishment then turn up to the dole queue for the establishment handouts. That's right. They blame those on Universal Credit £64.50/week handouts, while the ribbon cutters get £1.5m/week. Then they will accuse a republican of being a Marxist. The they will put forward a claim that an alternative to this unelected head of state Hitler or Putin or Trump or others that it is clear are ridiculous alternaives without even seeing to irony that even a twat like Trump was elected. I think thy produce these fake arguments because they don't have any real ones. They will then close down the debate labelling you a traitor. Is that all? £64.50 per week? There are other benefits claimed, some totally legitimately but some unscrupulously or through lack of desire to work. It’s unfair on those who need it to survive who can’t work. There was an enlightening report produced which might explain the benefits of the Monarchy here: brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdfIt’s well worth a read.
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Mar 1, 2022 22:45:10 GMT
Most of them are subversive Unionists who blindly follow the politics of Corbyn and his Anti English venom. Unfortunately, I work with several of them. Dirty Rats.
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Mar 2, 2022 10:57:36 GMT
That's right. They blame those on Universal Credit £64.50/week handouts, while the ribbon cutters get £1.5m/week. Then they will accuse a republican of being a Marxist. The they will put forward a claim that an alternative to this unelected head of state Hitler or Putin or Trump or others that it is clear are ridiculous alternaives without even seeing to irony that even a twat like Trump was elected. I think thy produce these fake arguments because they don't have any real ones. They will then close down the debate labelling you a traitor. Is that all? £64.50 per week? There are other benefits claimed, some totally legitimately but some unscrupulously or through lack of desire to work. It’s unfair on those who need it to survive who can’t work. There was an enlightening report produced which might explain the benefits of the Monarchy here: brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdfIt’s well worth a read. Yes that was a good read. Sure the real estate, jewels and gifts acquired by whatever means over the centuries has a tangible value, that could be floated on the stock market so that Royal worshippers could take a step up to become shareholders rather than subjects. The bulk of the value placed though were intangible assets, perceived brand value by tis expert, indirect revenue attributed to tourists, as in the news recenty there is the cash-for-honours schemes, that someone in China would pick a product endorsed by the Royals over another product when it is not known whether they would have still stuck with that product regardless of whether there was a coat of arms on it. Sure, there may well be an uplift, just like people perceive Apple to be of a higher value because of build quality and image. But Royals Plc can be free to do that and issue dividends to their shareholders, pay for their own buildings, pay all the required taxes, follow the same processes, dress up how they want, pay for their own security, get in the same NHS queue as everyone else, face criminal charges when appropriate, stand for re-election of the company board based on merit and achievement. It was a bit rich to hear Prince Charles banging on about democracy last night. If he wants to declare himself Prince/King/whatever, adorn himself with fake medals and other regalia then of course that is fine, but when was he ever placed in this position by democratic process? Have they not got better things to do other than decree that Camilla can be known as Queen Consort, I mean who gives a shit what she wants to call herself? Yet that dominated the news for weeks, plus the paedo prince, the Harry and Meghan soap opera. It's fine if they set themselves up like the Kardashians to promote brands or whatever they do and then people have a choice to follow and support them or not. I would rather salute the person that starts with nothing and builds something and brings people with them. These people don't really care, it is bred in their genes.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Mar 2, 2022 10:59:20 GMT
Always love it when people reject the establishment then turn up to the dole queue for the establishment handouts. Always love it when people turn their anger on benefit cheats and those on benefits when we have a Royal Family full of entitled spongers……. who do a damn site more for the good of the country.
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Mar 2, 2022 11:16:20 GMT
How is the alleged £2bn calculated? Do they ask every tourist for their primary reason for visiting UK? Even with all other costs and their benefits excluded that they get £70m loose change, what is the real cost when the other benefits and costs are included? Then add on the payments yielded from assets given to them that will always have the State to fall back on. What about the cost to the environment of their wasteful opulence? If it could be shown that the real cost of this unjust system was £1bn and the real gain from tourists flying over to get a glimpse of the royals was only £0.2bn then what would Royalists then use to justify them in the 21st century. Why don't they simply stand for election? The cost to the environment? The Queen owns most of the land in the country, much of which is national parks etc. I get the issue with their private travel arrangements but that’s the same for every leader (private jets/cars etc) Sure what is the carbon footprint of all their castles, palaces and homes. How many bedrooms do they need? How many vehicles? How many journeys to cut ribbons? I don;'t know if true but it is reported that the average annual carbon footprint f a UK citizen/subject is 12 tonnes, compared to Prince Charles 432 tonnes. Now if he is 36x more productive that your average UK citizen then maybe there is a case for that but he doesn't do anything useful or contribute anything. Much of which is National Parks, more like 5% or less, which isn't much. Most of that 4-5% is owned by farmers trusts and various other institutions. They came about after pressure from ordinary people, not a benevolent gesture from the Royals. The Queen also received revenue from the wind farms out in the sea because she owns the continental shelf. So she does none of the engineering work, none of the design, none of the laying af cables and maintainance, the distribution of the electricity, assists in no way whatsoever, yet for some reason she owns the continental shelf and like a parasite draws money from their hard work. Who says she owns the sea bed, when did she buy it? What gives her the right to claim it and then hold out her hand for money for doing nowt? Why not invest and assist thos companies setting up the wind farms and then legitimately expect a return on that investment? Because that money is then forcibly taken it is then classed as "income" raised by the Royals for the country's benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 2, 2022 11:24:41 GMT
Are there any other national anthems around the world that are about a person rather than a country as God Save The Queen is?
As a 'song' I've never liked it but I might have a bit more time for it if it was actually about the land of my birth rather than a fawning over a nonagenarian German.
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Mar 2, 2022 11:28:52 GMT
Always love it when people turn their anger on benefit cheats and those on benefits when we have a Royal Family full of entitled spongers……. who do a damn site more for the good of the country. Like what though, any specific examples? Only in the non-Royals column there is an endless list of contributors. In the Royals list who do we have and what specifically do they contribute? I mean it should be easy if they do a damn site more for the good. Are any of them a surgeon for example, saving lives, compared to one who is say a peado? To be far Will got his pilot's licence for Air-Sea Rescue and then jacked it in, where that training place could have taken by someone who would have stuck at it and saved lives. What des Edward do? Harry to be fair went out with the armed forces, kicked off the Invictusgames, which is great but he's no longer a Royal. Charles talks to plats. I'm not seeing how they do a damn site more, expecially for the money they're on.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 2, 2022 11:32:16 GMT
Are there any other national anthems around the world that are about a person rather than a country as God Save The Queen is? As a 'song' I've never liked it but I might have a bit more time for it if it was actually about the land of my birth rather than a fawning over a nonagenarian German. depends where you're born i suppose ?
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Mar 2, 2022 12:22:35 GMT
I think we should adopt Waterloo by ABBA, or Always Look On The Bright Side of Life, or something people can do a bit of a jig to instead of that boring dirge GSTQ, Prince Andrew might be happy with YMCA for example, The Great Escape would be alright as it easier to pick up lyrically. It's a bit boring them just standing there and most of these NAs are shit. Then someone gets ott upset if someone makes a boo sound. Maybe simply not having them and cracking on with the match is the best way, I mean that is what people paid their money for.
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 2, 2022 13:04:48 GMT
Is that all? £64.50 per week? There are other benefits claimed, some totally legitimately but some unscrupulously or through lack of desire to work. It’s unfair on those who need it to survive who can’t work. There was an enlightening report produced which might explain the benefits of the Monarchy here: brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdfIt’s well worth a read. Yes that was a good read. Sure the real estate, jewels and gifts acquired by whatever means over the centuries has a tangible value, that could be floated on the stock market so that Royal worshippers could take a step up to become shareholders rather than subjects. The bulk of the value placed though were intangible assets, perceived brand value by tis expert, indirect revenue attributed to tourists, as in the news recenty there is the cash-for-honours schemes, that someone in China would pick a product endorsed by the Royals over another product when it is not known whether they would have still stuck with that product regardless of whether there was a coat of arms on it. Sure, there may well be an uplift, just like people perceive Apple to be of a higher value because of build quality and image. But Royals Plc can be free to do that and issue dividends to their shareholders, pay for their own buildings, pay all the required taxes, follow the same processes, dress up how they want, pay for their own security, get in the same NHS queue as everyone else, face criminal charges when appropriate, stand for re-election of the company board based on merit and achievement. It was a bit rich to hear Prince Charles banging on about democracy last night. If he wants to declare himself Prince/King/whatever, adorn himself with fake medals and other regalia then of course that is fine, but when was he ever placed in this position by democratic process? Have they not got better things to do other than decree that Camilla can be known as Queen Consort, I mean who gives a shit what she wants to call herself? Yet that dominated the news for weeks, plus the paedo prince, the Harry and Meghan soap opera. It's fine if they set themselves up like the Kardashians to promote brands or whatever they do and then people have a choice to follow and support them or not. I would rather salute the person that starts with nothing and builds something and brings people with them. These people don't really care, it is bred in their genes. I dunno mate, each to their own, doesn’t personally bother me and I’d rather keep them as it is but maybe I’m a dinosaur regarding the monarchy 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2022 13:10:30 GMT
Fuck the national anthem, i turn the sound down when the GB god save whoever comes on, its about time us English had our own anthem we have the sweaties singing about some weed/flower or summat the irish, well they sing about ireland the welsh sing like theyre going into battle ( quite good too ) we sing about an old dear in london,,, bin it and sing jerusalem I like the idea of the Irish sing about Ireland, The Welsh Wales etc...Let's sing about Jerusalem
|
|
JudgeMental
Youth Player
Your Iso-Cube is waiting.
Posts: 339
Location: MegastokeCity 1
|
Post by JudgeMental on Mar 2, 2022 13:19:25 GMT
[quote author=" brotherleelove" timestamp="1646055006" source="/post/7411735/thread"]Both clubs currently have German managers. Managers come and go - but fanbases are culturally shaped and rooted over time. So what is the present " culturally shaped " fanbase of Liverpool in your opinion.[/quote] Apart from the "International fans" who come from anywhere and everywhere across the globe, and the armchair/Sky generation fans - there is a core of support that is either based in the ROI or has roots there. And let's face it, by definition they're not going to be fans of the Royal Family are they? That is to say, there will be a core that won't be. Same goes for Man Utd - they've also always had big Irish contingents. Probably because of family/historical links with players/no big teams in Ireland to support. Further Reading: Liverpool's Irish Links
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2022 13:25:28 GMT
Most of them are subversive Unionists who blindly follow the politics of Corbyn and his Anti English venom. Unfortunately, I work with several of them. Dirty Rats. Do you know most of them then and what politics they follow?
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Mar 2, 2022 14:18:14 GMT
I thought Unionists were those that preferred the 4 nations sticking together, which I would include myself as one of those. I'm not sure Corbyn would describe himself as a Unionist in a UK context though, a Soviet Unionist perhaps. Corbyn was voted out though, by the country and then the Labour Party. Although Prince Charles was extolling the virtues of democracy last night, he can't be voted out. If you mean Trade Unionist, even they have to stand for election and re-election. They also tend to have to be qualified to do the job of serving their members, whereas The Royals need to attain no qualifications or certifications to obtain the riches they are granted.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 9, 2023 11:37:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Feb 9, 2023 12:34:49 GMT
Are there any other national anthems around the world that are about a person rather than a country as God Save The Queen is? As a 'song' I've never liked it but I might have a bit more time for it if it was actually about the land of my birth rather than a fawning over a nonagenarian German. None whatsoever,shit song,insulting shit words.
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Feb 9, 2023 12:36:00 GMT
And Stoke have never done anything like this have we?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 9, 2023 13:29:29 GMT
Well yes but surely the Royal Family must have had a hand in it
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 9, 2023 13:53:23 GMT
And Stoke have never done anything like this have we? Not that I know of, I can't remember spraying ammonia at the opposition players, can you ?
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Feb 9, 2023 14:18:48 GMT
And Stoke have never done anything like this have we? Not that I know of, I can't remember spraying ammonia at the opposition players, can you ? I remember gas/smoke canisters being thrown at fans inside grounds and children attempting to climb over spiked railings in the 80s so they could breath cant you? Plus setting fire to pubs with customers inside the list is endless and not one Stoke fans can claim any moral high ground on.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 9, 2023 16:48:58 GMT
Not that I know of, I can't remember spraying ammonia at the opposition players, can you ? I remember gas/smoke canisters being thrown at fans inside grounds and children attempting to climb over spiked railings in the 80s so they could breath cant you? Plus setting fire to pubs with customers inside the list is endless and not one Stoke fans can claim any moral high ground on. I do remember the smoke bomb incident, with 1 child on the railings, away at Everton, it was 2 sets of fans who were going against each other on the terraces. I've no idea about the pub, where was that ? But what about the ammonia/cs gas against players, you didn't answer that ?
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Feb 9, 2023 19:28:25 GMT
I remember gas/smoke canisters being thrown at fans inside grounds and children attempting to climb over spiked railings in the 80s so they could breath cant you? Plus setting fire to pubs with customers inside the list is endless and not one Stoke fans can claim any moral high ground on. I do remember the smoke bomb incident, with 1 child on the railings, away at Everton, it was 2 sets of fans who were going against each other on the terraces. I've no idea about the pub, where was that ? But what about the ammonia/cs gas against players, you didn't answer that ? I was standing next to the person who threw the smoke bomb we were in a different stand ,no one going at it inside ,outside was a different matter. Stoke have set fire/attempted to in a few pubs down the years. There is one on you tube in Manchester at an England game. And others. Regarding players no but Im sure some have thought about it. www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/soccer-fans-go-rampage-5095766
|
|