It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Queen (UK) should move into a council house - What say yall?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

I second you there because a friend who has been crippled for years is still having problems getting the benefits entitled to. They went for assessment 5 months prior to the 65 birthday, had to wait for the reply just a couple of days before their 65th when the benefit changed drastically down and was told on the phone, not to bother to appeal as they were too close to being 65! Nothing but a fddle yet the royals and their ilk, get money for doing soppy little jobs that mostly they do so badly they would get the sack of end in prison and merrily scorn the public. Disgraceful!




posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I think that royalty should be abolished simply because their time is over. The cost to the public of their expensive upkeep as opposed to the financial cuts the public are having to face are not acceptable in this day and age. People think mistakenly the queen has no influence in our government - that's a lie and she uses it to protect her self interest and that of her wayward offspring's criminal activities.

I have seen bigger crowds looking up at the pope and many celebrities - people forget what an ugly family they actually are. It has only been with the bringing in of Diana and her sons and Di'as anoxexic daughter in law Kate that we have any form of attractiveness. Probably it comes from the inbreeding but there is no charisma if you see the rest of them, just smug quiet sneers and artificially expressed interest when called away from the horses, cavorting and gambling and a set of morals even an ally cat would blush at. This even goes queen herself who (according to the thread on Prince Andrew where an expose of the royals is fascinating and should be public reading) apparently had refused to sleep with the blatant womanising duke since before the birth of her last two sons.

The pomp that many languish upon here actually costs us a fortune to put on with precious little return - the tourism we would get anyway because or our uniqueness, fabulous scenery, brilliant hospitality and relative security for tourists alongside a terrific historical record studies around the world.

If you look at how our royalty has conducted itself - Richard the Lionheart not speaking our language and taxing us to the hilt for his wars that had nothing to do with our country, victoria and her empire that gave the south african gold rights to rothschild and esconsed him and his behind the british throne and the links of the banking corruption just show one of the many tentackles that they benefit from that permeates our society and cost us ordinary people our lives in the forces, when they are sent out to protect the interests of this disgusting elite group that nestle around the british throne. Time to get rid of the lot of them - they have a lot to answer for.

Personally I would give them all back to the Germans but I doubt they would want them either. Had they have opted for a lifestyle similar to the other royal houses without the privileges and property they have never earned themselves, they might not be so disliked, but Andrews latest scandal - probably long overdue should be the end toll. I suspect you will have to prize their greedy hands off the fantastic jewellery and works of art that correctly belong to the State as I doubt they would want to go empty handed with only what they have actually earned for themselves...



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a is that many of the rich pay less tax and in some cases none at all due to the corporative nature of their incomes.
Its time for a haircut for the elite and celebrity and instead of worshipping them we should be shaming them.


While people complain about the top 1%, it is appropriate to note that they contribute a quarter to a third of the tax take in the UK. Remove the 1% and you may as well kill off the NHS or welfare.

www.theguardian.com...

While some rich people undoubtedly dodge tax, it is appropriate to remember that many un-rich people also dodge tax, such as paying in cash to avoid VAT. Tax avoidance is not the exclusive realm of the wealthy.

I am not an advocate of excessive pay, and would like to see curbs on excessive pay – particularly in the public sector. I work in the NHS and am very familiar with excessive pay to clinicians as well as senior managers. GP’s who are paid privately (as GP are not part of the NHS – something which not a lot of people recognise), regularly earn massive salaries.

Excessive pay in the NHS


Statistics from the Health and Social Care Information Centre found that in all 3,620 GPs were paid over £150,000 a year, down from 3,920 in the year before. Of that total, 670 GPs received more than £200,000 a year in 2011/12, up from 730 in the previous year.


Source for above quote concerning pay to GPs in the UK

Regards



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Id instead make the goverment confiscate all there property and make it taxpayer owned (as we pay for it) and allow them to live in it for free in exchange for diplomatic service.


But, Crazey, that is exactly what happened close to 300 years ago. It seems most people who are against the Monarchy have no clue as to how it is funded or what the Crown Estate is.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: stumason

Ah now the mystery of the scottish vote becomes so much clearer - she wouldn't have lost balmoral in 1000 years and I bet every trick was pulled to ensure that + she was desperate for that vote to keep the scots' assets and extra purse from scottish tax payers coming in to enjoy.


Er, nope, because as a private property, it would not have mattered one bit, the same as any property owned by an Englishman in Scotland.

As for the "extra purse", you do realise that the Monarchy does not cost the taxpayer one bean, right? It's all paid for from the Crown Estate.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Also, you do realise that there are 12 Monarchies in Europe, with 7 being EU members? France is probably the only example of a Western European democracy doing well out of former Palaces etc and only because they retooled them to be Museums or to be the President's abode.

Who goes to Germany to see former Royal palaces? Poland? If people do go, they might view these ancient places for the history, but it's never the draw that brought them there in the first place. In fact, when I lived in Germany myself, we never once went to any former "Royal" anything.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Make the entire aristocracy spend 6 months in a hostel for homeless folks. It'd do them a power of good.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

You bang on about cost, Shiloh, but clearly you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Also the tired old "German" argument comes up again. The last German born Monarch was over 300 years ago. The rest have been born and bred here, in England. At what point does someone cease to be "German" in that case? I myself have Irish ancestors from around the same time, but I would never pretend to be (or allow someone to do so on my behalf) Irish.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Thank you for explaining so well the UK Council Housing. When I was young, my Auntie owned a Bakerie (place that made bread) on a Council Estate. Talking early 70's to 80's.

It was a lovely place, all looked after, neat gardens and nice houses.

10 years later I wouldnt go near it. My Aunties bakery was an Off Licence (Beer shop) with a glass wall keeping shoppers away from the booze! The estate was a junkie and robbery free for all and a nightmare for all.

It wasn't the Queens fault, during her Jubilee theses estates all appreciated Britain, bunting and street parties everywhere, good times.

Now it's crap on these estates. Sanctuaries for poor and immigrants, a dangerous cocktail.

To the OP, y'all is very American but I wouldn't imagine the Royal Family would matter a bit to a foreigner?

To the Brits....fcuk your hatred of the monarchy, it costs you nothing, they allow public access to their homes, (if it were privatised buildings, history and land would be closed ) the queen, bless HM, does not have any legal power but would make sure a rogue government couldn't take over (America has the 4th amendment, we have the armed forces swearing to the monarch).

Rule Britannia, to the OP, no I do not wish HM the Queen or any of the Royal family a council house. They do a bloody good job and are poorly paid for a life in 100% in the public eye.

God save the Queen.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
To the Brits....fcuk your hatred of the monarchy, it costs you nothing, they allow public access to their homes, (if it were privatised buildings, history and land would be closed ) the queen, bless HM, does not have any legal power but would make sure a rogue government couldn't take over (America has the 4th amendment, we have the armed forces swearing to the monarch).]


On this point - back in the 1960's and 70's, there was talk of an Army takeover of the Government because they were bending over to the Russians (Harold Wilson - Labour) and sending the nation to the crapper as a result of continued strikes and labour disputes. It never materialised, but it is thought Royal intervention prevented the Army from following through. They did, however, occupy Heathrow Airport as a show of strength to remind the Government the lay of the land.


originally posted by: Forensick
Rule Britannia, to the OP, no I do not wish HM the Queen or any of the Royal family a council house. They do a bloody good job and are poorly paid for a life in 100% in the public eye.


Quite - the be Monarch or Heir is essentially to be a slave to the State. Their entire lives are micromanaged by the Government, they go where they are told and say what they are told by those in Parliament.

They have little to no freedom, they are essentially prisoners of the State - albeit well kept and fed prisoners, but prisoners none the less. I wouldn't want the job.

On that note, when Harry was asked what he thought about the second baby, him slipping down the line of succession and not being King, he responded with a laugh and a loud "Good!!". Sums it up, really.



originally posted by: Forensick
God save the Queen.


Indeedy!



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Not totally right and in fact in part's very wrong, it had nothing to do with the Russians and everything to do with a perceived erosion of the Upper class' traditional feudal power's and status, people were calling them Mr instead of Lord etc, indeed this was actually the perception of Mountbatten himself (though I doubt anyone referred to the queen's cousin as Mr Mountbatten) and several other member's of the still powerful aristocracy at the time whom were seeing there position's and power eroded by Labour's reform's and push to create a fair and meritocratic society that looked after the 'British' people, of course we know that ethos is gone especially this a Internationalist in charge of Labour.

They received tacit blessing from the highest level's of the US government and the CIA after they approached them as the US was worried about links between the 'extreme' militant left of labour and the Soviet's whom actually were funding them covertly but the coup plot - (in which the house of Common's was going to forcibly entered by a military unit armed with weapon's that were being covertly moved into the royal barrack's, the government were to be arrested on treason charge's and Mountbatten to be installed as interim prime minister until they had forcefully put down an protests as the country was to be kept under martial law in a south American style tin pot dictatorship) - had nothing to do with the American's concern's and everything to do with a group of stuffed up toff's wanting to put the working and middle class firmly back under there heel's which they have apparently achieved now.

We did have a serious problem with drop of the hat strike's and militant (communist) infiltration of Labour but that was a minority of Labour and on the other hand we still have a serious problem of corrupt Conservative Right winger's who simply think normal British people are of no value and should be kept down.

Out of the two despite the Corruption form the Communist infiltration it was Labour who was actually the true Democratic party wanting to represent the masses and make British society more fair which the original democratic party at the time merely a traditionalists party and that being the original and real as well as the only party I would want Liberal party whom Remember they were actually mainly upper crust well educated member's with a higher average intelligence than either of the other two party's but were an extreme minority of the electorate when it came to poll representation, sadly the current liberal party is a sham and not driven by the same Christian principle's of the reformist liberal party.

It was the liberal's who gave woman the vote.
The working class the vote.
Ended the work housed.
Dreamed up the concept of the NHS.
State Pension.
etc, but Labour stole the limelight and most of the time there political member's were to coin a phrase "All My Arse", they were in it only for there own concern's and agendas were the old liberal party were made up of ultra wealthy lord's and entrepreneurs whom had noted the inequality of Victorian and early twentieth century British society.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Double post deleted
edit on 25-1-2015 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: LABTECH767

I second you there because a friend who has been crippled for years is still having problems getting the benefits entitled to. They went for assessment 5 months prior to the 65 birthday, had to wait for the reply just a couple of days before their 65th when the benefit changed drastically down and was told on the phone, not to bother to appeal as they were too close to being 65! Nothing but a fddle yet the royals and their ilk, get money for doing soppy little jobs that mostly they do so badly they would get the sack of end in prison and merrily scorn the public. Disgraceful!


I have heard story's far worse then mine and at the moment I have family around me but god help those souls that do not, I only moved into security as my right hand was crippled in an accident which has left it deformed, I have limited dexterity in it as a result, so security I was ok with that until my back gave out, I miss daily interaction with people and the retail environment as well as moving site's so that you don't get to regular but what can you do when you can barely walk some day's and have constant pain, no one has time for a scrounger but as if the humiliation of having to take sick is not bad enough this government have made it so that our own people are having to go to food bank's, they are not men who are running our country they are soulless animals whom have betrayed our own people and deserve no pity for what is going to befall them, God know's what decent prime minister start's complaining about the elderly, they worked all there live's and have built this nation on the work of there back's but these day's they are afraid of going into a hospital in case they get bumped off, the Liverpool care pathway was not the only method they used but paying a hospital trust £4500 for every elderly patient that SUCCESSFULLY put on the Liverpool care pathway, well if that does not smack of murdering our own elderly then what does and the bedroom tax is a thinly veiled method of clearing up accommodation space for the immigrant' work force the elite of the CBI want in the country to go with there tax haven Britain dream.

Unfortunately this obvious wealth biased unfairness against our own people is breeding extreme right racist sentiment and that is actually distracting the mind's of most people from the real issue's.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

That is a good point and valid, I agree but a fairer tax bracket does need to be brought in and higher taxation for greater wealth as well as more even distribution of that wealth, this can be achieved through subsidising British business to create more job's and move some of our production back from the increasingly more expensive far east and though it is too late to turn the clock back the string of privatisation's has been an utter disaster in the long run for the majority of the British public, along with a decent minimum wage we need everyone to pay there tax form the top to the bottom.
I am vehemently against the New Labour policy of devolution to council's as they are riddled with corruption and firmly believe the chancellery should still be overseeing there expenditure as well as holding the purse string's as it used to be run but know full well that every council in the country would deny this was a fact or right, have a look at the wage level's of the council's chief executive's and remember they are supposed to be public servant's not lord's and lady's.

Despite my stand of the fact's regarding royal ascension and lineage I am actually not a anti royalist, simply not a royalist.

Someone pointed out how the queen is in the public spotlight constantly and this is true, I actually feel sorry for her and I will quantify that, they are figure head's that wield very little power anymore and are indoctrinated from a young age into the role they sometimes do not even want, there was one occasion when Elizabeth snuck out of the palace and walked around central London with a head scarf on many - many years back when she was much younger and there were some who suggested she had lost her mind at the time or was going a little funny in the head, the truth is she is a virtual prisoner, ok it's a nice gilded cage and she is never going to go hungry but come on would you really want to not be allowed to do whatever you wanted, there time on board the royal yacht Britannia was probably the closest she got to freedom.

Another point the Queen is not the government, she open's and closes parliament, she has the limited power to refuse a prime minister which has never happened and she was most likely in no way involved in her cousin's coup plot, as a person I think I quite like her and do not believe the story's about her but they are a red rag to the bull so to speak, but I do not accept her as the legitimate rightful head of England and neither did the rightful king so the throne was contested and if there was a court that could host such a trial the evidence would have been in his favour with only established tradition of 500 years in her favour and the fact the house of Hanover had no legitimate claim to the British throne against her.

However there is a point to consider, the Reestablishment of the monarchy was an act of parliament after Cromwell's downfall and they chose there crown figure head whom was the equally well loved and despised William of Orange over the established line's Stuart claimant and so it can be argued that since that time as it WAS an act of parliament that the current royal household having succeeded form that line have a measure of legal and rightful legitimacy which could trump such a case in there favour.

Though the whole notion of a monarchy is an anachronism far past it's time

Nothing is ever clear in these matter's.


edit on 25-1-2015 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Yes I'm sure the UK would still bring in the massive tourism funds if the Queen was greeting them outside a block of flats...


I'm sure the economy would thrive off of that.




Which is why we then rent out rooms in Buckingham Palace et al to rich tourists



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
Make the entire aristocracy spend 6 months in a hostel for homeless folks. It'd do them a power of good.







I know six months is not a long time, but William spent that time cleaning toilets, and cooking for his fellow gap year students, south America I think?



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Well I bet that made him suffer, seriously? A gap year jaunt alongside a bunch of Hooray Henry's,yah? Let me just check my eyes for tears.....................nope,completely dry.
Tip those parasites and their forelock tugging fan base off the cliffs.
God save the Sex Pistols.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Considering most of thehousing stock was sold off and waiting lists for what little is left could be as long a 10 years. i believe the queen should get to the back of the queue like the rest of us. Who the hell does she think she is.

And another thing, As the queen is funded by the tax payer and her families wealth was built on the broken backs of the tax payer she should be paying Bedroom tax on all those empty Bedrooms she has. ie,Buckingham Palace. Windsor Castle and on every other property she owns the length and breadth of the country.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I am referring to the rich that live here and pay no tax - how much less would the overall tax bill be if the revenue actually collected the taxes that go missing each year. Perhaps we could raise the lower tax level to 12 - 14k and the benefit would most likely benefit our economy.

Its no good living in a world where the top 1% are doing such damage and owning so much - otherwise why do we say we vaue democracy so much? Democracy means fairness for all surely we are on a world dictatorship but apart from the one we have already esconced in the UK with queenie.

Like yourself myh son works in the NHS as is on the lower end as he has just started on the wards. He pays tax and does a worthwhile job - as indeed do you but surely were tax fairly spread there would be more money in the economy to do more with on the side of the workers and institutions like the NHS.

I do think that the money that certain industries such as film and sports pay is obscene but its more corporations that withhold millions in taxes that the world needs to act upon. Too much inbalance in the world will lead to destabilisation and people like Christine Legarde(?) are already worrying about this.

My GP is incredibly caring and works very long hours. He is one in 100 GP's and I honestly don't begrudge is earning because he looks after his patients and gives the the time, help and ensures they are looked after. My last one was a clock watcher and saw people like a conveyor belt operative. So I think a site for GP's would probably go along way to ensuring they all earned that kind of money. I suspect they need to recuperate at lot of student loans and they do put in the hours whilst training.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Metallicus
Council housing is where the local authority own houses then rent these houses at low cost to "poor people".

Of course in America you have no such thing as your local authorities are mercenary bast**** and put your "poor people" out on the streets to live in tent towns.


We do have such a thing. In the US it's called section 8 housing. Now you know. Thanks for making assumptions.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join