DS Forums

 
 

Queen Unwell


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 14:17
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
Do the Republicans here think that other heads of state do nothing as well?
The titular ones; like ours do nothing of any significance. I am not a Republican btw I think all ceremonial heads of state are a waste of money and other peoples time whatever they are called.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 14:55
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209


What has she done?
Tax dodging and the Burrell court case spring to mind. Piss poor. But stick an HRH in front of it and suddenly people go aww, isn't she marvelous.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:03
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
Tax dodging and the Burrell court case spring to mind. Piss poor. But stick an HRH in front of it and suddenly people go aww, isn't she marvelous.
It's HM not HRH. Show some respect!
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:07
James Frederick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
It's HM not HRH. Show some respect!
HM thought that was Murdock's first name in A Team (Howling Mad)
James Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:13
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
It's HM not HRH. Show some respect!

Apologies. I'm now on my knees as I post.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:15
Joey_J
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,456
Apologies. I'm now on my knees as I post.
Good, because don't forget

You are lesser than the Queen

Joey_J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:29
johnF1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,109
That was a huge shock though, because she was so young. The death of someone over 90 will hardly be unexpected and I doubt there will be the same outpouring of grief.
Agreed. I'd expect the media to be full of tributes for weeks on end, but not the outpouring of grief we had for Diana.

Similarly for personal bereavements, if your Grandmother died aged 90 after a long full life, of course you'd be sad but you'd probably cope and accept it better than say your sister dying age 36 in a car crash.
johnF1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:07
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
Good, because don't forget

You are lesser than the Queen


I humbly agree. My blood is red.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:16
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
I'm no royalist but I think the Queen has performed her role admirably. People joke about her job being easy, but I daresay with hundreds of public engagements a year, plus hundreds of other meetings, combined with the sheer weight of the responsibility of being head of state, she is more active than most people who sit at a desk all day. She has continued to do this well past the normal retirement age. My mother is in her 60s and already finds traveling tiring.
Don't let hard facts get in the way of spiteful vitriol. Plus for all the anti royalists, if there's ever a referendum on whether or not to abolish the monarchy, you'll see what the majority think. Good post, Shaddler.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:37
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
Tax dodging and the Burrell court case spring to mind. Piss poor. But stick an HRH in front of it and suddenly people go aww, isn't she marvelous.
Can you elaborate on your "tax dodging" reference?

Re the Burrell case, are you suggesting that she lied?
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:08
Patti-Ann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,400
Can you elaborate on your "tax dodging" reference?

Re the Burrell case, are you suggesting that she lied?
I think the Queen used to be exempt from paying tax.
Patti-Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:20
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
Can you elaborate on your "tax dodging" reference?

Re the Burrell case, are you suggesting that she lied?
Well for instance;

A private tax deal which the Queen reached with the Conservative government of Sir Winston Churchill when she ascended the throne nearly half a century ago may have brought her a windfall income of over £1bn during her reign, investment statisticians have calculated.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/...y.stephenbates
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:22
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
I think the Queen used to be exempt from paying tax.
She still is.

Taxation
The Crown has a legal tax-exempt status because certain acts of parliament do not apply to it. Crown bodies such as The Duchy of Lancaster are not subject to legislation concerning income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. Furthermore, the Sovereign has no legal liability to pay such taxes. The Duchy of Cornwall has a Crown exemption and the Prince of Wales is not legally liable to pay income tax on Duchy revenues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...amily#Taxation
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:26
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
Well for instance;

A private tax deal which the Queen reached with the Conservative government of Sir Winston Churchill when she ascended the throne nearly half a century ago may have brought her a windfall income of over £1bn during her reign, investment statisticians have calculated.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/...y.stephenbates
If it was an arrangement negotiated with the approval of the then government, then surely by definition it cannot be defined as "tax dodging"?
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:30
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
Don't let hard facts get in the way of spiteful vitriol. Plus for all the anti royalists, if there's ever a referendum on whether or not to abolish the monarchy, you'll see what the majority think.
Yes, that is the whole point of referendums - to find out what the majority think! And by the time we get one, support for the monarchy will likely not be as strong as it is right now.

This particular republican is not one for spiteful vitriol btw.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:39
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
Can you elaborate on your "tax dodging" reference?
Sure. The dodges range from not paying any (as recently as her mother's death she trousered about 40 million, from memory, that should have gone into public coffers) to agreeing to pay 'some'. Aww, isn't she marvellous.

Re the Burrell case, are you suggesting that she lied?
I'm saying that if she wasn't queen people would've taken a dimmer view of her behaviour.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:42
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
Sure. The dodges range from not paying any (as recently as her mother's death she trousered about 40 million, from memory, that should have gone into public coffers) to agreeing to pay 'some'. Aww, isn't she marvellous.



I'm saying that if she wasn't queen people would've taken a dimmer view of her behaviour.
But she does pay tax... even though she isn't legally required to do so.

Your second comment doesn't really answer the question. Are you suggesting that she lied?
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:49
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
But she does pay tax... even though she isn't legally required to do so.
You're making my point for me.

Your second comment doesn't really answer the question. Are you suggesting that she lied?
I'm expressing myself very clearly. Her behaviour was piss poor, and more people would be saying so if she wasn't queen.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:50
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,190
She still is.

Taxation
The Crown has a legal tax-exempt status because certain acts of parliament do not apply to it. Crown bodies such as The Duchy of Lancaster are not subject to legislation concerning income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. Furthermore, the Sovereign has no legal liability to pay such taxes. The Duchy of Cornwall has a Crown exemption and the Prince of Wales is not legally liable to pay income tax on Duchy revenues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...amily#Taxation
Shameful privilege.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:56
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
If it was an arrangement negotiated with the approval of the then government, then surely by definition it cannot be defined as "tax dodging"?
Ok we can call it tax avoidance if you prefer. A fine example to her subjects whatever we call it.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:58
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
You're making my point for me.



I'm expressing myself very clearly. Her behaviour was piss poor, and more people would be saying so if she wasn't queen.
No. Tax dodging is when you don't pay tax which you are legally required to pay. If you are not required to pay it, then it isn't being dodged.

You haven't expressed anything at all. Nevertheless, although your anti-monarchy sentiments are coming across loud and clear you still haven't provided anything which supports either of your claims.

If you can't actually answer a couple of simple questions with simple and logical answers, then there's little point in continuing this line of discussion.

Never mind.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:01
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
No. Tax dodging is when you don't pay tax which you are legally required to pay. If you are not required to pay it, then it isn't being dodged.

You haven't expressed anything at all. Nevertheless, although your anti-monarchy sentiments are coming across loud and clear you still haven't provided anything which supports either of your claims.

If you can't actually answer a couple of simple questions with simple and logical answers, then there's little point in continuing this line of discussion.

Never mind.
Perhaps you don't understand the point I'm making.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:04
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
Perhaps you don't understand the point I'm making.
You haven't actually made one yet. Don't worry about it. I'm just about to go out, so it really doesn't matter.
Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:04
Blofeld
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scotland, Europe
Posts: 6,738
Do the Republicans here think that other heads of state do nothing as well?
This seems like a silly comment, but I'll bite.

I'm pro-republic. I have always had that view and would really struggle to change my view on that.

I don't think the Queen does literally nothing, I just think her role is over hyped and that all the arguments for retaining her are grossly exaggerated. I don't see why an elected head of state couldn't do exactly the same thing she does, just without all the pomp and ceremony and all the extended family. Surely we can all agree there is a bit too much money diverted towards the Royals and their extended sundry?

I don't accept she is responsible for stability or that tourism booms because of her. People make it sound as if republics don't have any tourism. Do people not go to Washington DC to see the White House? Do people not visit Germany and France to see Castles too? You never heard of anyone rushing to Liechtenstein purely because they have a Royal family. I wholeheartedly reject the claims that they bring in so much money. The tourists would still come in their droves if the Royals were to be kicked out tomorrow and that's a simple fact. My main objection to Monarchy is that it is not earned, it is just given by pure accident of birth and then we have no choice but to accept it and pay for it and we have no way whatsoever of getting rid of this person nor do we have any control over what to do or how they act.

Ceremonial heads of state are at least selected by the people of the nation they represent and can act in addition to the government as a kind of neutral representative on official levels. They would have to earn thier position and would be just as easy to replace if the people decided thus. I'm sure people will harp on about how we could end up with a Z list celebrity and how they would rather have the Queen, of course that's true, we could end up with a no hoper, but at the same time, that's who the people will have chosen. We could also end up with someone just as dignified as the Queen.

So yes, I am very much anti-Monarchy because for as long as we have them we are never a democratic nor fair society when we have one family at the top who have never had to do anything to get there.
Blofeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:23
batgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
You haven't actually made one yet. Don't worry about it. I'm just about to go out, so it really doesn't matter.
Of course I made a point. But don't worry, I'm not worried you missed it.
batgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32.