You Can Stick Your "Royal" Wedding Where the Sun Don't Shine.

reply to post by budski


Yeah after you failed to provide any links and it's on you to post links to back up your claims, but seeing as how they were rubbish and were made up numbers anyway I can see how you wouldn't be able to provide them.

6bn
30bn
50bn

these are all estimates none of them are the real cost so to say it cost **** to the tax payer is at least bending the info that's out to your agenda.

reply to post by Dock9


Oh, right, so on an internet forum I am not allowed to express my feelings.

And people care about this charade?
Tell that to the millions who haven't had a street party, who don't give a crap and who have to foot the bill for this nonsense.

I have seen not a single street party today - the only ones are those being staged and filmed for the propaganda channel, otherwise known as the BBC.

reply to post by budski


Free party's are in progress, bang out the bass.

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by budski

 

Yeah after you failed to provide any links and it's on you to post links to back up your claims, but seeing as how they were rubbish and were made up numbers anyway I can see how you wouldn't be able to provide them.

6bn
30bn
50bn

these are all estimates none of them are the real cost so to say it cost **** to the tax payer is at least bending the info that's out to your agenda.

lol, where's your "we are in profit from this" stupidity now?

At least I was in the ballpark - you on the other hand were fooled by the corporate sponsored media.

I call EPIC FAIL on your quest to prove it cost us nothing.

I also call EPIC FAIL on your german love for a bunch of fascists and racists who have done sod all for this country, and have only ever taken from us.

In other words, you are the weakest link - goodbye.

Something else I have on my mind about this is how the UK looks to people abroad, especially in Muslim countries.

Mr Cameron has just been caught out along with President Sarkozy in arming the Libyan rebels before they rose up.
This immediately must make people in the Middle east etc wonder whether the UK is interfering in other countries as well. People are fighting and dying because they are armed with our weapons and we are busily celebrating a wedding. It seems a tad callous. Its ok for Cameron, he and his family are protected but the rest of us aren't..

I don't believe in doing a wailing wally over this but we are very isolated, most of our terrorism is home grown and could in all honesty be got rid of by deportation. But its our reputation I suspect could suffer here. Afterall we are a country that can afford to throw blimey, that figure has gone way above my gestimate. We could be seen as exploiters especially as we probably insisted they instate a central bank.

reply to post by budski


When did I say anything about profit? your getting your posters mixed up.

Nice edit, it's a shame I never said any of those things.

Originally posted by Lynda101
Something else I have on my mind about this is how the UK looks to people abroad, especially in Muslim countries.

Mr Cameron has just been caught out along with President Sarkozy in arming the Libyan rebels before they rose up.
This immediately must make people in the Middle east etc wonder whether the UK is interfering in other countries as well. People are fighting and dying because they are armed with our weapons and we are busily celebrating a wedding. It seems a tad callous. Its ok for Cameron, he and his family are protected but the rest of us aren't..

I don't believe in doing a wailing wally over this but we are very isolated, most of our terrorism is home grown and could in all honesty be got rid of by deportation. But its our reputation I suspect could suffer here. Afterall we are a country that can afford to throw blimey, that figure has gone way above my gestimate. We could be seen as exploiters especially as we probably insisted they instate a central bank.

With that in mind, do you think this was all a good idea?

On the plus side, at least blair and his horrible social climbing wife were snubbed - quite honestly, that's the only good thing to come out of this day for me...

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by budski

 

When did I say anything about profit? your getting your posters mixed up.

Nice edit, it's a shame I never said any of those things.

edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

Well, it's also a damn shame I never said I hated anyone - but that didn't stop you from posting that I did.

BTW, I did the edit before your reply - sorry about that, but I wasn't to know.

reply to post by budski


Apart from your posts are full of hate, the liberal use of insults in your posts throughout the thread show that.

I guess that's what you get in the rants section.

reply to post by budski


I suspect Blair worries somewhat about travelling in case someone pulls him into the Hague where he should be for the deaths his personal lying caused regarding Iraq.

I think his presence and that of the ghastly Cherie was quite deliberately overlooked. His laughable job of Peace Envoy to the Middle East is no success except in costing the UK tax Payer a fortune, as our Tony only stays in the best suites in the best hotels in places like Abu Dhabi. Do you know we pay a fortune to provide him and a number of his residences with security.

I think the royals have used this wedding as a PR effort to try to repair their image here. Its backfired because I suspect fewer people have turned out and it has given people, apart from the obvious trolls, an opportunity to say what they think about the extravagence and maintaining such a medieval institution as royalty. A smaller affair would have been better because they are already living together. There is a distinct waryness about this marriage, will it reflect his parent's?

I also think it shows a Monarch totally out of touch with her subjects or the mood in the country and utterly insensitive to the hard times we are all living through.

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by budski

 

Apart from your posts are full of hate, the liberal use of insults in your posts throughout the thread show that.

I guess that's what you get in the rants section.

edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

So, because I have an opinion, I am full of hate?

You tried to label me before, and it didn't work - you're just making yourself look foolish.

I don't like the huge waste of money, I actually find it offensive

I care nothing for the so called "Royals"

I don't wish them harm, but I find all this charade repulsive.

If that makes me a hater, then you have a very strange definition of the word, bearing in mind I have wished no ill on anyone.

reply to post by Lynda101

A smaller affair would have been better because they are already living together

I don't understand this line of thinking, why should living with your partner before marriage dictate the size of your wedding?


Bud if you think just posting insult after insult isn't hate then fair play to you. I hope you live a happy life.

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by budski

 

I suspect Blair worries somewhat about travelling in case someone pulls him into the Hague where he should be for the deaths his personal lying caused regarding Iraq.

I think his presence and that of the ghastly Cherie was quite deliberately overlooked. His laughable job of Peace Envoy to the Middle East is no success except in costing the UK tax Payer a fortune, as our Tony only stays in the best suites in the best hotels in places like Abu Dhabi. Do you know we pay a fortune to provide him and a number of his residences with security.

I think the royals have used this wedding as a PR effort to try to repair their image here. Its backfired because I suspect fewer people have turned out and it has given people, apart from the obvious trolls, an opportunity to say what they think about the extravagence and maintaining such a medieval institution as royalty. A smaller affair would have been better because they are already living together. There is a distinct waryness about this marriage, will it reflect his parent's?

I also think it shows a Monarch totally out of touch with her subjects or the mood in the country and utterly insensitive to the hard times we are all living through.

You are a person after my own heart.

I agree with everything you said.

I have added you as a friend.

The hypocrisy that we see is unreal - it beggars belief, and the only reason they get away with it is because too many people don't really care that much - simply because they are more concerned about their jobs, loved ones and the immediate future.

It's sad to say that people have forgotten that we can exercise power by NOT voting for one of the big 3.

I'm hopefull things can change - but I'm not holding my breath while I wait

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Lynda101

 

A smaller affair would have been better because they are already living together

I don't understand this line of thinking, why should living with your partner before marriage dictate the size of your wedding?

If you want to quote "tradition" then a bride should go to her wedding bed as a virgin, in order to ensure that the royal offspring is really a royal.

Why should your social status dictate the size of your wedding?

Social status is something that has been created to feed ego's.

Why should we pay to inflate someones already overblown ego?

reply to post by budski


Budski,

What sort of wedding would it have been, had Wills and Kate had to pay for it themselves like most couples?

reply to post by budski


What? who's quoting tradition? and no It dosen't it depends on how much cash you have.

You haven't actually posted the cost yet just your guesses and estimates by other people.

The royal family itself is expected to pay for the bulk of the wedding costs, including the wedding parties and both receptions. As we reported in an earlier post, there will be both an afternoon luncheon immediately after the ceremony, and then an evening reception of dining and dancing for a small and elite crowd of 300 guests – the innermost of the Prince’s inner circle. The afternoon luncheon reception will include 600 guests and is being hosted by the Queen (Wills grandmother), so she’ll cover those expenses out of her accounts. The evening dinner / dance reception at the Palace will be hosted by Prince Charles (father of the groom), so he’ll be paying for that.

Other wedding costs like the dress and flowers, etc. etc will be paid by the Royal family, one way or another.

But the British government will have to absorb the cost of policing and road closures from Westminster Abbey to Buckingham Palace along a route that will cover 2.25 kilometers (1.4 miles). The government has also decided to declare a public holiday for the Royal Wedding, meaning all government workers will get the day off, with pay.

So the royal family pay for the wedding we pay for security, So they could of had the wedding just fine but it would of been closed, which you guys would of liked obviously.

Oh yeah no links as you should do the research, RIGHT

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by budski

 

Budski,

What sort of wedding would it have been, had Wills and Kate had to pay for it themselves like most couples?

A beautiful wedding - any wedding between people that love each other is just that.

Instead, we had a circus.