Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

[jamesedwards]

People, I fully appreciate most don’t like the Royal Family.

Not at all, most people in the UK support the monarchy. It's just those that don't like to make lots of noise about it.

Me and others had the privilege of meeting her and having something pinned to our uniforms. On that day in question, she put her hand on my shoulder in the gardens and asked if I could escort her upstairs to her room, which I gladly did. 5 mins later her personal protective detail turned up with doctor. Of course, she was fine.

Are you telling me that the Queen once asked you back up to her bedroom?

[sionascaig]

People, I fully appreciate most don’t like the Royal Family.

Not at all, most people in the UK support the monarchy. It's just those that don't like to make lots of noise about it.

Yes, I just can't understand the privilege / accountability side of it.

But it's not really about like (I liked the last Queen), but what is right in a democracy.

Appreciate there are some strong views out there and apologise if I upset anyone with a rant.

[firlandsfarm]

They can do that without:

- being head of state
- changing legislation to benefit themselves
- not paying taxes like everyone else on private assets
- accepting extremely large cash donations (as head of state) as personal gifts
- providing shelter for those accused of criminal sexual activities

The list goes on & on & on...

And our elected representatives are not even allowed to talk about them in parliament even after swearing an oath to them & "all their descendants"...

Sure, have a Royal family... No need for for all the rest though...

It would appear you are happy to excuse excuse excuse them for anything...

edit - at least with an elected head of state we can remove them..

(and here I was thinking we had reached a happy place)

What goes on and on is the misleading comments designed to stir up feelings against them.

The Royal Family as Mr and Mrs Windsor would not have the same pull as HRH.

They cannot change legislation, that is for Parliament they are the puppets of Parliament.

They do pay taxes. (and I think that's a bit ripe coming from someone who doesn't pay tax on their betting/trading profits!). Also don't ignore that The Crown Estate, whose profits are surrendered to the Treasury, reported a record profit of £1.1 billion in the latest financial year

You need to update your accusations. The only reference I could find to "extremely large cash donations" related to donations to their charities, not to them personally ... (how many charities do you have?). As a fact check have a read of what your beloved Guardian had to say about it (article here).

"those accused of criminal sexual activities" I assume you are referring to Prince Andrew. As far as I can tell he has been looked at by the police and been treated accordingly by the law. Are you saying we should have different laws for the Royal Family?

... do continue the list and let's fact check more. I am not excusing them at all, I check the facts and form an opinion.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a Leader and a Figurehead. They are figureheads, not leaders. They have no power over the UK. And as for removing leaders could you please arrange to remove KS before he and his 40 thieves do more damage. But there is one member of the Royal Family that should be removed, Harry. I'm still waiting to see the results of the DNA test!

We were in a happy place until you resorted to type and misrepresented what you no doubt would claim to be facts.

And I notice in amongst all your research you are still not quoting what the Royal Family (as a Royal Family) bring to the UK so let's have a look at some figures shall we ...

Cost to Taxpayers: the Sovereign Grant in the financial year 2022–23 was £86.3 million. Plus the campaign group Republic argues that the actual annual cost to taxpayers is approximately £510 million, considering factors like security expenses and potential (lost) income from royal estates.

Revenue Generated: the Crown Estate, whose profits are surrendered to the Treasury, reported a record profit of £1.1 billion in the latest financial year. Plus, the royal family significantly boosts tourism, with estimates suggesting they contribute around £500 million annually to the UK economy through tourism and related activities.

So for my simple maths we get "Income = £1.1 + £0.5" minus ("Cost = £0.0863 + £0.51) giving us a positive value to the UK of £1.0037 billion. If you manage to remove them maybe you would care to share how you intend to replace that money within the Government's finances and the economy.

[firlandsfarm]

That analogy doesn't work.
You don't leave your county if it's remotely a good place to be.
Syrians left because of 13 years of war. A wobbly regime change means next to nothing. If I was the boss I would vet them closely. If they pass I would support them more than a UK resident. Why? They need language. Without language you are a zombie. No-one will interact, house or employ you.

The analogy works perfectly ... your home is the country and your friend is the immigrant! And I don't think anyone has said we should just ship them back without regard for the state of the new Government. I said if the reason for granting their asylum is no more. So if the reason was because it was dangerous then they wouldn't be expected to return until it was safe. Simples!

What if they've made a new life here?

Each case to be assessed on it's merits. If they are of a skill we are looking to encourage it would be stupid for us to ignore that and remove them but if they are on benefits or maybe taking employment from UK citizens then they should be removed. Charity begins at home.

[firlandsfarm]

People, I fully appreciate most don’t like the Royal Family.

I and many others took an oath, Queen first, Country second.

Me and others had the privilege of meeting her and having something pinned to our uniforms. On that day in question, she put her hand on my shoulder in the gardens and asked if I could escort her upstairs to her room, which I gladly did. 5 mins later her personal protective detail turned up with doctor. Of course, she was fine.

I also had the privilege to serve with Scots Guards, Irish Guards, Welsh Guards, Para’s, Royal Marines and the Gurkhas during Iraq 1, 2 and Afghanistan.

Could be wrong but I don’t ever member any of them talking down about the Queen.

I can’t speak for those above but I personally would have rather protected the Queen than my country and probably most of you on this forum.

Peace.

I've never been in the forces but I can understand everything (except your opening comment) you say Archery and thank you for your service ... I particularly agree with your very last comment!

[sionascaig]

They cannot change legislation, that is for Parliament they are the puppets of Parliament.

Screenshot 2024-12-09 101930.png

Screenshot 2024-12-09 102058.png

They do pay taxes. (and I think that's a bit ripe coming from someone who doesn't pay tax on their betting/trading profits!). Also don't ignore that The Crown Estate, whose profits are surrendered to the Treasury, reported a record profit of £1.1 billion in the latest financial year

They do not pay capital gains, corporation or inheritance tax on certain estates. Any income tax is paid voluntarily.

The Crown Estate is "owned" by the state, it is not the Royals private property, although they seem to treat it as such, e.g. selling some property to P Andrew at a knockdown price which he flipped a couple of months later for a £2m to £3m personal profit.

You need to update your accusations. The only reference I could find to "extremely large cash donations" related to donations to their charities, not to them personally ...

Screenshot 2024-12-09 103252.png

There are loads of examples.

And would be even more but the Royals have failed to provide a list of personal gifts over the last 4 years.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

"those accused of criminal sexual activities" I assume you are referring to Prince Andrew. As far as I can tell he has been looked at by the police and been treated accordingly by the law. Are you saying we should have different laws for the Royal Family?

He ran away to hide from the authorities in Balmoral. Warrant could not be served as the queen refused to give permission for law officers to enter the grounds to serve warrants. It ended up in court where the judge to told Prince Andrews lawyers that as they were in touch him him they could serve the warrant.

You also have the case of a member of the public witnessing a Royal party shooting protected birds of prey on the Sandringham estate. Permission for the police / RSPCA to investigate was not granted until after evidence collected / hidden...

Again both well documented cases of abuse of powers if not actual law breaking..

Ill say it again, no need to remove them... Just let them be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Is this even remotely fair or reasonable?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... life-crime

"In fact, a year before the shooting incident in the vicinity of Sandringham, the UK’s wildlife legislation was updated. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 included amendments to a number of laws for England – one of which sets out the Queen’s personal immunity from prosecution for wildlife offences, and denies wildlife inspectors the power to enter her private estates to investigate alleged crimes."

[firlandsfarm]

Clearly points to consider but there are many doubts.

"secretive procedure" ... if secret how come they are known about?

"vetted" ... maybe but how many were actually changed and without Parliamentary approval? The Monarch has to sign off Acts, is it not reasonable they would read what they are signing?

"database" ... where is this database and who has access?

"not known" ... cannot be fact then.

"evidence of lobbying" ... where is the evidence, which laws, were they changed, did Parliament approve any changes?

What tax do you pay on your betting/trading profits? I always laugh when those who benefit from tax free profits criticise others who have reduced tax liabilities. At least they 'volunteer' to pay tax, why don't you do so on your betting profits?

If it's not the Royals private property how can they sell it?

"Royal family appears to have appropriated" ... so good solid facts there then. And I feel they are safer in the control of the Royals, KS and DL would probably give them away!

"after evidence collected" ... so no evidence and no evidence of evidence being collected/hidden ... that a very strong claim then (I don't consider a claim by an individual followed by supposition to be "well evidenced").

And I say again Mr and Mrs Windsor would not bring in the £1.0 billion of benefit to the UK. I think all who want a Republic should club together and start a voluntary fund where they contribute the £1 billion p.a. to financially recompense those who would lose by such a move ... That is fair and reasonable.

[sionascaig]

If it's not the Royals private property how can they sell it?

The Royals manage the Crown Estate through representatives & it is overseen by an executive that includes the PM.

The Crown Estate can sell property to anyone, including other Royals but good luck if you wanted to purchase or rent out an estate on the same terms as Prince Andrew.

Although, in heartening news, King Charles has said he will refuse to provide Andrew with any further financial assistance unless he (and his personal yoga instructor) vacate the 38 bedroom palatial residence he has a 25 years lease on...(at a token rent as far as I can see).

Give them the odd break given their onerous duties - sure...

Do the Royals add value to UK economy - sure...

Can we at least agree that the following is completely ridiculous?

"In fact, a year before the shooting incident in the vicinity of Sandringham, the UK’s wildlife legislation was updated. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 included amendments to a number of laws for England – one of which sets out the Queen’s personal immunity from prosecution for wildlife offences, and denies wildlife inspectors the power to enter her private estates to investigate alleged crimes."

And it is very unlikely that an MP requested this exemption in the legislation?

Edit - I would be very happy to swap my personal taxation situation with Charlie... Can't think of anyone who wouldn't..

[firlandsfarm]

Can we at least agree that the following is completely ridiculous?

"In fact, a year before the shooting incident in the vicinity of Sandringham, the UK’s wildlife legislation was updated. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 included amendments to a number of laws for England – one of which sets out the Queen’s personal immunity from prosecution for wildlife offences, and denies wildlife inspectors the power to enter her private estates to investigate alleged crimes."

And it is very unlikely that an MP requested this exemption in the legislation?

Edit - I would be very happy to swap my personal taxation situation with Charlie... Can't think of anyone who wouldn't..

No, sorry we cannot. I don't find that "ridiculous". The monarch cannot be prosecuted or subject to civil legal action under the law so that immunity was simply confirmed for the avoidance of doubt and I suspect the question of 'strangers' having the power to wander willy-nilly over what is defined here as Crown Land would be considered a security risk.

I don't see why an MP, loyal to the Monarchy (as they are all sworn to be) and keen on the legal position, should not introduce such an amendment if it was an amendment ... was it? It could have been presented to the Queen as the initial draft with her having no involvement in the relevant wording in question.

1993 the Monarch's personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. So if he makes any profit from betting activities it will be tax free, just as it is for you.

[sionascaig]

Can we at least agree that the following is completely ridiculous?

"In fact, a year before the shooting incident in the vicinity of Sandringham, the UK’s wildlife legislation was updated. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 included amendments to a number of laws for England – one of which sets out the Queen’s personal immunity from prosecution for wildlife offences, and denies wildlife inspectors the power to enter her private estates to investigate alleged crimes."

And it is very unlikely that an MP requested this exemption in the legislation?

Edit - I would be very happy to swap my personal taxation situation with Charlie... Can't think of anyone who wouldn't..

No, sorry we cannot. I don't find that "ridiculous". The monarch cannot be prosecuted or subject to civil legal action under the law so that immunity was simply confirmed for the avoidance of doubt and I suspect the question of 'strangers' having the power to wander willy-nilly over what is defined here as Crown Land would be considered a security risk.

I don't see why an MP, loyal to the Monarchy (as they are all sworn to be) and keen on the legal position, should not introduce such an amendment if it was an amendment ... was it? It could have been presented to the Queen as the initial draft with her having no involvement in the relevant wording in question.

1993 the Monarch's personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. So if he makes any profit from betting activities it will be tax free, just as it is for you.

You are really stretching that argument imho...

So to cut a long story short you think it is is perfectly reasonable for the Monarch not to be persecuted for cruelty against animals (or indeed any crime).

Do you not see how absurd that it?

Not all of our past monarchs have been quite as gracious as the late queen and I would be very surprised indeed if any future one is....

PS was just watch a programme on TV about Edward's VIII treason - fascinating. And, but for an accident of birth we could have had an (alleged) kiddy fiddler on the throne..

[firlandsfarm]

You are really stretching that argument imho...

So to cut a long story short you think it is is perfectly reasonable for the Monarch not to be persecuted for cruelty against animals (or indeed any crime).

Do you not see how absurd that it?

Not all of our past monarchs have been quite as gracious as the late queen and I would be very surprised indeed if any future one is....

PS was just watch a programme on TV about Edward's VIII treason - fascinating. And, but for an accident of birth we could have had an (alleged) kiddy fiddler on the throne..

Yes, I can see how on the face of it it might appear to some to be absurd but Monarchs are not 'ordinary people' (BTW, I expect that to be taken out of context sometime in the furture) and there are many aspects to their living that need to be considered. I'm sure some have done 'wrong' but the ramifications of applying 'normal' law would probably far outweigh the justice. I am not knowledgeable of what the law actually says, nor why it was introduced and what the arguments pro and con were at the time but if that law is so absurd why don't you are your mate Starmer and his Harmers to bring it down ... they have the whip and majority to do anything.

[sionascaig]

Yes, I can see how on the face of it it might appear to some to be absurd but Monarchs are not 'ordinary people' (BTW, I expect that to be taken out of context sometime in the furture) and there are many aspects to their living that need to be considered. I'm sure some have done 'wrong' but the ramifications of applying 'normal' law would probably far outweigh the justice. I am not knowledgeable of what the law actually says, nor why it was introduced and what the arguments pro and con were at the time but if that law is so absurd why don't you are your mate Starmer and his Harmers to bring it down ... they have the whip and majority to do anything.

I actually don't mind "above the law" for state responsibilities... And rely on the sensibilities of the population to vent approval / disapproval for questionable actions. Lets face it, if they act inappropriately any goodwill will vanish pretty quickly..

Private actions however...

I think we agree to disagree...

And at least we can.

It has not always been that way especially where the monarchy is concerned )

[firlandsfarm]

Yes, I can see how on the face of it it might appear to some to be absurd but Monarchs are not 'ordinary people' (BTW, I expect that to be taken out of context sometime in the furture) and there are many aspects to their living that need to be considered. I'm sure some have done 'wrong' but the ramifications of applying 'normal' law would probably far outweigh the justice. I am not knowledgeable of what the law actually says, nor why it was introduced and what the arguments pro and con were at the time but if that law is so absurd why don't you are your mate Starmer and his Harmers to bring it down ... they have the whip and majority to do anything.

I actually don't mind "above the law" for state responsibilities... And rely on the sensibilities of the population to vent approval / disapproval for questionable actions. Lets face it, if they act inappropriately any goodwill will vanish pretty quickly..

Private actions however...

I think we agree to disagree...

And at least we can.

It has not always been that way especially where the monarchy is concerned )

Agreed but I'm not sure anything a Monarch does can ever be private. It may be attempted but someone somewhere will find it and publish (make money from) it.

[sionascaig]

In breaking news, Glasgow no longer has the lowest male life expectancy in the UK...

That honour now belongs to Blackpool. I wonder why?

Austerity
"Cuts in spending were not equally applied geographically, leading to some allegations that non-Conservative areas were being systematically targeted. Health expenditure in Blackpool (Labour) fell five times more per person than in Surrey (Conservative). Osborne has denied the cuts were applied in this way, but other Conservative staff members have since acknowledged "big strategic moves" that were made to favour demographic groups more likely to vote Conservative. This meant that the richest 20% of the population were essentially excluded from the impact of cuts. The approach was "devastatingly politically effective" according to Osborne, and is credited with the 2015 election win. British MP David Gauke also stated that this rebalancing had gone too far.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... %20Kingdom

[Archery1969]

It’s well documented that the Monarchy generate between 4 and 50 times the cost to the taxpayer. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I really don’t understand the arguments.

Yes they have great privileges. After the handgun ban, Prince Phillip was exempt and allowed to keep and shoot his Luger pistol at Chelsea Army Barracks. No doubt he was also exempt from being prosecuted if he decided to shoot it at any Royal Estate. At the end of the day, who cares. After leaving the Army I too was allowed to possess banned firearms to the public as was issued a Home Office Section 5 licence. Did I have good reason, No I did not. Very often in life, it’s not what you know but who you know or a combination of both.

While still in the UK I would be allowed to fire sub machine guns at the Police Firearms Training Centre at Gatwick. I was not a Police Firearms Officer, past or present and had no lawful authority to do so. But I still got an invite twice a month.

My point, stop thinking the Royal Family are the only ones with privileges.

Ask the PwC accountancy firm how many MP’s and others they advise on legal tax avoidance. It would probably make you sick.