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.

 

Rumours of news embargo for UK VIP

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Apparently concerning a very high ranking person in the UK, sorry I dont have more on this yet but all 'official' sources to be very quiet on it right now. Again sorry for the short post and lack of info, but was hoping someone else might have heard or could do a bit of digging with me. Supposedly higher ranked than any politician




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard
 


So this is news of no news of something we don't know about?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Seconded. If there was some more info on this i would be prepared to search this topic but as we don't really have anything to go on.......



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Hey be thankful at least now you know something is not going on, instead of not knowing nothing is actually as we speak not happening.

Feel enlightened I do!



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
could be a member of the aristocracy getting a super injunction to cover up some sexual misconduct



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I think its more serious than some old perv getting busy tbh



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard
 


Why?

What makes you think there is a story buried somewhere? Do you work in politics or media? Or law enforcement? Is there something that makes you believe this is a credible rumor?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Sounds about right.. But as they usually know how to cover their bums, I feel nothing slips out passed their nets unless they want it too, hence why I will always be sceptical of any breaking news that we plebs are not really meant to know.

(sorry, my thoughts on this probably sounds backwards even when I try to make it sound clear
)
edit on 13/10/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Prince Harry being deployed to Afghanistan to kill people with Apache helicopters for some reason I have never fathomed?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Prince Harry being deployed to Afghanistan to kill people with Apache helicopters for some reason I have never fathomed?


When did that happen? He's not even qualified fully on the Apache yet.

As for the OP, we're gonna need something concrete. Even where you heard these rumours would be a good start.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
no chance they wont send william or harry anywhere near danger



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
Apparently concerning a very high ranking person in the UK, sorry I dont have more on this yet but all 'official' sources to be very quiet on it right now. Again sorry for the short post and lack of info, but was hoping someone else might have heard or could do a bit of digging with me. Supposedly higher ranked than any politician


First of all, where did you hear or read this? How do you know all official sources are quiet, and who are the official sources??

Right now you're basically giving us a map and shovel, and saying please help me dig..... without giving us any co-ordinates. Hell, we don't even know what we are digging for!



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by micpsi
Prince Harry being deployed to Afghanistan to kill people with Apache helicopters for some reason I have never fathomed?


When did that happen? He's not even qualified fully on the Apache yet.

As for the OP, we're gonna need something concrete. Even where you heard these rumours would be a good start.


Well, he might be qualified enough by now to carry out limited military tasks. Or perhaps he is being sent to sit as a passenger to get experience on the - er - "job". Who knows?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by akapapasmurf
no chance they wont send william or harry anywhere near danger


So Prince Harry is being trained to fly Apache helicopters to help carry the Christmas mail, is he?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by akapapasmurf
no chance they wont send william or harry anywhere near danger


Harry has already done a tour in Afghan, albeit a shortened one because some US rag of a paper couldn't keep their mouths shut and blagged about it. They brought him home becuase they felt if the Afghans knew he was there, it would endager his whole unit disproportionately.

That said, Harry wants back out and is doing his Apache course as we speak.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The only thing out today that I saw was on Bloomberg about the richest day for racing. You guessed it - our main Royal gambler is enjoying the day.

She deserves a day off, she works so hard for us all, as indeed I am sure you all are aware of just how really hard the Royals, bless them, pursuing their daily duties. Where would we be in England without them?

Huh! The real question is where are we in England with them? Sorry forgot - bless them.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


He has just started 2 months of Combat readiness training in the US for the Apache. After that, he will have the status of "limited combat ready". He will still have several more courses before he even comes close to being fully qualified and sent to Afghan.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynda101
 


The Royals do work hard and, despite what some would have you believe, they don't actually cost the taxpayer any money yet bring in substantial amounts in tourism and trade.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I totally disagree with your point of view.

We've all heard the 'we give them 40 million and they give us back 200 million'. The British throne is the richest in the world. But that wealth was earned well before our current royals, the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha perched upon it. So they are not giving us back anything that was legitimately theirs in the first place. Many Brits didn't know it then, they even had to learn our language after they started supping here. I appreciate we have had a terrific Royal Family spin but they are the beneficiaries not us.

Regardless of that, your point concerned them costing us nothing is amazing. Just to raise one expense, who do you think foots the bill for their security. Everytime a Royal flies, drives, goes by train, visits the theatre, does official visits, even pokes their nose outside the door?

I remember reading Buckingham Palace received £65,000 in tourism fees a few years ago. Its worth comparing our castles, palaces and the extra perk of live Royals to the figures the French earn in Tourism with no Royals. Their palaces are fabulous they earn millions in revenue and they maintain them, Fontainebleau had 330,000 visitors and over a million visited its forests. We can't currently compare with their top attractions in either their beauty or their earnings, but could we maintain and make more of our heritage were we in the same position today as the French?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Lynda101
 


On the subject of cost, I really couldn't care less if you agree or disagree, this isn't a debate.

The Civil list, which only pays for the Queen and her consort, costs around £30-40 million a year at present. In return for the Civil list, which ironically was agreed with a "German" king (People love to bleat on about the Queen being German with little actual thought of what they're saying) the Monarchy gave almost all the Crown Estate to the State. This estate earns the Treasury somewhere in the region of £350 million a year in revenue.

So, not even taking into account the net effect of tourism they may or may not bring, the simple maths of it is they don't actually cost the taxpayer anything and are actually net contributors to the Treasury.

Soon, they're income will be a % of the income from the Crown Estate, capped at something like £40 million, so then they will not even be "extracting" any money from the Treasury at all, regardless of the net amount.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join