Its not really jargon, its a fairly well-known phrase that they use. I don't swim against the tide at all, I just say what I believe is right.
The Royals
- Thread starter Disco down under
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You get the odd bad one, like in life . . . .
I wonder if she's going to sue, or whatever, the other blokes that she's had sex with during that period . . . . or are they not famous/rich enough
You must log in or register to see images
. . . . this is going to cost Betty (apparently) £12m (£10m to the girl), but I can't help thinking that she has got exactly what she wanted, whilst ruining Andy's credibility.I wonder if she's going to sue, or whatever, the other blokes that she's had sex with during that period . . . . or are they not famous/rich enough
There have been many amemdments to The Crown Lands Acts, over the centuries, but very basicly the deal was that the crown passed over the incomes from lands owned and in return recieved an anual payment to compensate.
I the latest figure I can find is for 2020 where the Crown Estate made a profit of £345 mil that went to The Treasury.
The Queen recieved a Sovereign Grant for the upkeep of herself and her Family of £85.9mil, last year.
THIS WORKS OUT AT £1.29 per perso, per annum.
So far I find this niether ridiculous or expensive.
Any income from the Tourist industry is of course spread around those parts of the economy that provide for tourists.
The Crown derives little direct benefit. (Some no doubt pay to visit The Palace where their gate money goes towards the upkeep of that building).
Then you should consider what the cost of having a President might be.
Would it be less?
A close example would be, how many Tourists travel to France to see President Macron?
Of course I doubt that the figures I have quoted cover everything.
Close Security for example is paid for by The State.
State occasions, visits by Heads of State for example will also be paid for from Taxes.
But these sorts of costs would exist whoever held the posotion of 'Head Of State'.
Talking of which, what sort of Head Of State do you envisage.
One like Macron, who has real power,
OR
One like Steinmeier, the German President who holds a symbolic role rather like The Queen.
IF you prefer the former, it has recently worked well for The US of A where they had Donal Trump.
You get the odd bad one, like in life . . . .
You must log in or register to see images. . . . this is going to cost Betty (apparently) £12m (£10m to the girl), but I can't help thinking that she has got exactly what she wanted, whilst ruining Andy's credibility.
I wonder if she's going to sue, or whatever, the other blokes that she's had sex with during that period . . . . or are they not famous/rich enough
I must say, I don't understand why money is mixed up in the legal system. It seems absolutely bizarre to me. It makes no sense.
Would those other guys just go to jail as they can't raid their mum's handbag for 12m?
Where is the justice in amy of that?
It all seems very murky to me, this whole thing. Given the statements that both sides have made in the lead up to this, I think it leaves more questions than answers.
I seem to remember a quote along the lines of
It's not the power held by the Queen rather it is the power denied to others.
If the Queen was not head of state we would probably have to elect a president every 4 years or so. Could you just imagine the type of people that would run for that position?
Boris for president
It's not the power held by the Queen rather it is the power denied to others.
If the Queen was not head of state we would probably have to elect a president every 4 years or so. Could you just imagine the type of people that would run for that position?
Boris for president
Who knows what actually happened. His PR handling has been ****ing atrocious from the start. All of the lying and the nonsense about sweating etc.
I'm sure he's a despicable man with terrible judgement and far too much wealth but beyond that I've no idea what to think about it all.
The fact he hung out with Epstein et al tells me everything I want to know about this creep.....A Nonce, pure and simple, should be behind bars
I was about to say yeah but so did Bill Clinton. Then I remembered who Bill Clinton is.
You get the odd bad one, like in life . . . .
You must log in or register to see images. . . . this is going to cost Betty (apparently) £12m (£10m to the girl), but I can't help thinking that she has got exactly what she wanted, whilst ruining Andy's credibility.
I wonder if she's going to sue, or whatever, the other blokes that she's had sex with during that period . . . . or are they not famous/rich enough
I question why she settles Epstein for £500k when he had so much money that was on par with me given someone on the street a bit of change? He should have been the one she went after?
Also said something along the lines of wanting to get justice not money, why was that not the case with Esptein? Didn't her accepting the settlement allow him to be free a few more years?
All very murky, where bigs sums of money are involved it's hard to understand people true intentions and motivations.
He's a great example of how 'Society's perception' changes.
As a young man, flying his Helicopter into the flames of a burning ship, he was percieved to be a Hero.
His nickname of 'Randy Andy' just raised wry smiles.
When his wife rather let the side down by being free with her toes, he garnered some sympathy.
Then over the years his image changed, and not for the better.
He bacame 'Air Miles Andy'.
Some minor scandals with his Ex wife charging to arrange meetings with him.
Some disquiete about his business dealing while acting as a Trade Ambassador.
His assocation with Epstien, especialy after Epstiens first Guilty verdict got alarm bells ringing, but Andy, for some reason assuming himself to be bullet proof, stuck with his friend.
Then, against all advice he gave 'THAT INTERVIEW', confident that he was cleverer than any woman journalist.
Now, hopefuly, he can fade into the background, unseen and unheard.
Let's not forget he used to shag Amanda cryton Staverly. So he's definitely depraved beyond reason.
Well yes, but of course it would eventually imake someone else HOS instead.
You can see the oily wretches lining up. Blair, Cameron, Kinnock, May, Clegg. And on.....
I'm no monarchist myself mind and never was. But that list, being typical of the likely applicants, is an argument for it's retention.
There are also some huge constitutional issues to come around the abolition, but only the younger members on here are likely to see this as these royals last forever. They hardly burn themselves out!
I know someone who was on the same ship as the idiot for a time in the Navy.
He absolutely loathed that man, and he always tells me that was the unanimous opinion.
Well im in Twitter jail for daring to oppose the royal family. Censorship of opposition....that's the sign of a trustworthy institution.
Bring a lot of money into the country due to tourists flocking to see them.
Do the tourists get to meet them or something I haven't heard about.
A third of the population of the planet watched Harry's wedding.
They're a global brand to be exploited. Not something to get rid of.
The answer to your question is, --- NO, they would NOT go to Jail.
Firstly, this is a case under the American System and I'm no expert on that.
HOWEVER,
It's not a criminal case.
I'ts a civil case where one side is seeking damages.
So, it is entirely about money.
It would be pointless for the lady to go after anyone who would be unable to pay.
More to the point, I suspect that no US Lawyer would take such a case on because they would want to get paid as well.