Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Marvellous. About time our hostile environment policy was applied to Antipodeans. Wootton or Platell next?

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 7:03 pm Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Lead story and interview on Newsnight tonight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo

When leaders have a loose relationship with the rule of law and give a nod and a wink for Plod to put some stick about, it cascades down the ranks. Hairy lefty protesters need to be taught who’s in charge but tomorrow it’s Nick Ferrari’s listeners for getting lippy when the traffic cops stop them.

I was just coming here to post about that unfortunate coronation fan (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65567316)

Mainly because, irrespective of her unpleasant experience, the framing feels off, somehow. As though 'look how draconian the police are to innocents!' as if protest is a crime...

Oh...

Mainly because, irrespective of her unpleasant experience, the framing feels off, somehow. As though 'look how draconian the police are to innocents!' as if protest is a crime...

The odd fresh apple in a rotten barrel. Shades of Peter Sutcliffe’s ‘innocent victims.’

Cut price coronation, my arse.

The story behind the £3,500 shoes King Charles will wear for the coronation ceremony

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-05 ... coronation

And not a mention of who paid for 'em.

The shoes are made from leather created from calves which graze in a specific part of the Swiss Alps.

While they might sound expensive at £3,500, the firm makes handmade shoes that cost considerably more.

"A lot of the bespoke shoes we make are between £4,500 and £5,000 and we've even made shoes that go up to £20,000 a pair," Mr Gaziano said.

Well whoopee fucken do. He could've got something similar from Shoezone for under 20 quid.

Well whoopee fucken do. He could've got something similar from Shoezone for under 20 quid.

Wear curly jester boots and claim it’s an ancient Norman tradition and you’ll be believed.
Can’t get too excited about someone who can afford durable handmade shoes buying a pair. Mayor Bloomberg famously wore the same ones for over 20 years and worked out its a very cheap option, eventually. At least corporate suits can plan for the long term.

I wouldn't be overly bothered if there was absolutely no doubt that he had paid for them himself (except for the obligatory "where does his money come from?", of course).

It's more the rubbing people's noses in it. Forking out £3,500 for a pair of shoes he's likely to only wear the once, while many of the people who are having to pay for his special day probably can't scrape up £35 to do a bit of food shopping.

One calculation I saw said that if we divided all the £100 million amongst everyone we'd get £1.50 each.

It doesn't matter how little per head it works out to. It still adds up to a large sum of taxpayers'money which would have been much better spent on something of benefit to the country, rather than blowing the lot on a 'big day' for an extremely wealthy over-privileged parasite who, if I'm really polite, could be referred to as an expensive irrelevance.

People used to say that about the queen. What she got from the British population worked out to around 64p per head per annum. We were told we got "value for money". Actually, we, the people, got fuck-all. Just like we're getting from the king.

And take the royal family out of the equation, the palaces and castles, the liveried guardsmen are all still there. If that's what tourists want, of course. Besides, Versailles and Neuschwanstein don't seem short of visitors.

And before anyone starts with "Oh, and what would you replace them with, President Blair/Boris???" (it's always those two), there are plenty of examples of presidential republics (one on our doorstep) where a modestly-living president does the waving and opening and is seen as generally above internal politics.

And perhaps most crucially, the idea that someone, because of their birth is privileged - not just in terms of inherited wealth because what parent doesn't want the best for their children? - but being actually above the law, is just wrong.

My per-capita calculation is £100 million per King.

It would only be tuppence a head to pay my mortgage off. I wonder if they're keen.

Countries like the Netherlands seem to have a grown up relationship with their Royal family

And before anyone starts with "Oh, and what would you replace them with, President Blair/Boris???" (it's always those two), there are plenty of examples of presidential republics (one on our doorstep) where a modestly-living president does the waving and opening and is seen as generally above internal politics.

Most people who voted for Michael Higgins as president never voted Labour when he was an active politician. It’s his hinterlands away from politics that make him a rounded erudite person. Who’s authored more significant works than Budgie the Helicopter. Any nation stupid enough to elect Boris Johnson as president deserves everything they fucking get. But we can kick out a shit President even if a tradition embeds of leaving a good ‘un in for the long run.

Yug wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 12:55 pm It doesn't matter how little per head it works out to. It still adds up to a large sum of taxpayers'money which would have been much better spent on something of benefit to the country, rather than blowing the lot on a 'big day' for an extremely wealthy over-privileged parasite who, if I'm really polite, could be referred to as an expensive irrelevance.

People used to say that about the queen. What she got from the British population worked out to around 64p per head per annum. We were told we got "value for money". Actually, we, the people, got fuck-all. Just like we're getting from the king.

Again £100 million ain't that much in terms of the national budget it's not a lot. I mean you could for example give it to the NHS that would fund the NHS for five hours. Also why stop at the coronation we don't need spend all this money on Eurovision or the arts and spend it on something that benefits the country as a whole.

Again. £100 million is a fucking huge amount to waste on throwing a special event for an independently wealthy do-nothing. You said above that it works out to only £1.50 per head. To someone working full-time and still having to rely on food banks to make it through the month, even £1.50 is a smack in the face. Especially when you consider that Charles has around £1.8 billion in his private bank account.

It doesn't matter how small the figure is compared with the national budget, it's still a huge waste of money which could have been spent on something worthwhile. Even one tenth of the amount, if given to an organisation like the Trussell Trust, would go a long way to helping people get through these difficult times.

Yug wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 5:50 pm Again. £100 million is a fucking huge amount to waste on throwing a special event for an independently wealthy do-nothing. You said above that it works out to only £1.50 per head. To someone working full-time and still having to rely on food banks to make it through the month, even £1.50 is a smack in the face. Especially when you consider that Charles has around £1.8 billion in his private bank account.

It doesn't matter how small the figure is compared with the national budget, it's still a huge waste of money which could have been spent on something worthwhile. Even one tenth of the amount, if given to an organisation like the Trussell Trust, would go a long way to helping people get through these difficult times.

The solution's quite obvious, hold and win a referendum for abolition. Problem solved.

Sometimes there’s a need not to look at the £’s, but the optics

Watchman wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 6:22 pm Sometimes there’s a need not to look at the £’s, but the optics

Not really. Whilst the monarchy remains more popular than the government there's no incentive for an unpopular government to pick a fight with the monarchists.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/art ... -ahead-cor