[Greig_R]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
She works harder than most 85 year olds. Also, the diamond jubliee is more about having been the monarch for 60 years of her life (Longer than the vast majority will ever work, let alone be in the same job.) At 25 years you get a gold watch, at 60 you get a yacht.

The Queen is more of a tourist attraction than anything, any sane person would dream to have a job like hers, dont even think about saying she "works hard" or "deserves it" , as soon as she was born her life has been handed to her on a plate..What a trooper she is!!!! (sarcasm)

[middlj]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
Does that take into account the £5bn the royal wedding cost?

The royal wedding put Britain on centre stage to show the world britain is still a world power and we are no shut for business. The same as the olympic opening ceremony will.

2 Billion people, 1 in 3 humans on the planet tuned in to see London in all its glory.

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by middlj)
The royal wedding put Britain on centre stage to show the world britain is still a world power and we are no shut for business. The same as the olympic opening ceremony will.

2 Billion people, 1 in 3 humans on the planet tuned in to see London in all its glory.

It still led to a £5bn loss for the economy; but good on you for trying to turn a turd into gold

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by Tut.exe)

And here is why that video is nonsense/retarded;

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by Friar Chris)
A yacht financed by private investment, thereby costing us... Nothing?

If that includes ALL future upkeep and maintenance of the boat by the private sector too, then I don't have a problem with it - i.e. no taxpayer funds should be used at all.

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Your interpretation of Britain is whitewash and bleach everything.

And the inherent idiocy of a monarchistic system is not (i.e. one has to be off the 'right' blood in order to be eligible for the position LOL)

Besides, you are a dual citizen with the US. Your views are hardly reflective of Britain given 'half your family' are in America.

So, despite being born and raised in the UK, b/c my father (and his side of the family) is from the US, my views on a country where I have spent my entire life don't count (or rather, are "hardly reflective of Britain"). Great 'logic' there Sherlock

Still waiting on some evidence by-the-by, with regards to your original assertion that titles mean anything to anyone; in your case, China.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by middlj)
The royal wedding put Britain on centre stage to show the world britain is still a world power and we are no shut for business. The same as the olympic opening ceremony will.

2 Billion people, 1 in 3 humans on the planet tuned in to see London in all its glory.

Didn't think so.

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by middlj)
The royal wedding put Britain on centre stage to show the world britain is still a world power and we are no shut for business. The same as the olympic opening ceremony will.

2 Billion people, 1 in 3 humans on the planet tuned in to see London in all its glory.

I am sure you will ignore this post and the evidence but here goes.

Due to an extra day of lost productivity, our economy lost billions and did not make a net profit, according to research done by economists and business groups.

Sources:
CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20056608.shtml

Telegraph (based on information calculated by the Confederation of British Industry)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-11-days.html

[joshgoldman]

Not sure about anyone else, but I'd prefer to see the Queen going down the Thames in a rowing boat.

[PapaShmurff]

Why doesn't he just take her out fishing one day, same thing.

[geetar]

Yes, it is a waste of money.

Although it's nothing compared to the almost £10 billion the country is going to piss away on the fecking olympics.

[middlj]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
I am sure you will ignore this post and the evidence but here goes.

Due to an extra day of lost productivity, our economy lost billions and did not make a net profit, according to research done by economists and business groups.

I'm talking about the effects long term.

I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about economics, I was just saying that there were some positives to the royal wedding that people were whinging about.

It's good to show a bit of pomp and ceromony when half of the world is watching. It wouldnt have sent out a good image of Britain if the wedding was done at the local registry office would it.

[defuzion]

**** the jubilee, we should have a public event bending the old hag over and shoving £60m up her fanny in 2p coins. lets see if the tart will want a yacht then

[funsongfactory]

FFS you idiots, the yacht is NOT being funded by the taxpayer, it's being funded by the royals themselves.

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by middlj)
I'm talking about the effects long term.

Such as? Do you have any proof/evidence that these long term effects shall offset the £5bn cost of the wedding?

I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about economics

That much is already evident.

I was just saying that there were some positives to the royal wedding that people were whinging about.

People are "whinging about" a £5bn - a substantial number frankly - loss to the economy, over some wedding. Unless those "some positives" you speak of trump such cost and loss of economic activity in times of recession no less, they have every right to complain about the event. Any rational person would.

(Original post by middlj)
It's good to show a bit of pomp and ceromony when half of the world is watching. It wouldnt have sent out a good image of Britain if the wedding was done at the local registry office would it.

Yes, I'm sure that loss of £5bn was worth it to the economy b/c we got to "show a bit or pomp and ceremony"; its not like we're dipping back into recession or anything. Oh wait, we are

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by Katie_Saint)
FFS you idiots, the yacht is NOT being funded by the taxpayer, it's being funded by the royals themselves.

No "you idiot", its not being funded by the "royals themselves". Perhaps you should learn to read

Initially it was proposed that taxpayers foot the £60m bill and after that was rejected given our economic situation, it has now been suggested that it shall be funded privately - though there has been no mention of who shall pay for the future maintenance costs of said boat. I am perfectly fine with the private donors paying for this boat and indeed any future upkeep (i.e. there be no taxpayer involvement at all).

[funsongfactory]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
No "you idiot", its not being funded by the "royals themselves". Perhaps you should learn to read

Initially it was proposed that taxpayers foot the £60m bill and after that was rejected given our economic situation, it has now been suggested that it shall be funded privately - though there has been no mention of who shall pay for the future maintenance costs of said boat. I am perfectly fine with the private donors paying for this boat and indeed any future upkeep (i.e. there be no taxpayer involvement at all).

Well 'idiot' if you believe all the crap that The Guardian publish then perhaps you should learn to read something that's less full of wishy-washy liberal rubbish and more realistic. As it has now been rejected that the taxpayer pay for this boat, you all need to get over yourselves.

[Craig_D]

You could buy a rich old lady who owns several palaces and castles an expensive yacht, or you could give 60,000 of the country's poorest students a one-off £1,000 towards their tuition fees; they could call it the "Queen's Diamond Jubilee Scholarship".

"We'll take the boat, please."

And Gove is the education secretary.

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by Katie_Saint)
Well 'idiot' if you believe all the crap that The Guardian publish then perhaps you should learn to read something that's less full of wishy-washy liberal rubbish and more realistic.

Translation: I know I was a complete idiot for lecturing others on not reading the article, despite being stupid enough to not have read it myself and assuming that the "royals themsevles" would be paying for the boat. But instead of admitting to my idiocy, I shall just spout some further nonsense.

Bravo

As it has now been rejected that the taxpayer pay for this boat, you all need to get over yourselves.

Again, you idiot, perhaps you should actually have read the article. The Guardian first discovered the news Monday morning, when a leaked version of the letter Gove wrote to the Culture Secretary was obtained by them, stating that taxpayer funds should be used to pay for the £60m boat. After the obvious uproar/anger, the government LATER THAT DAY then stated that it would not support the project (quite rightly) in such a manner. Another article was then published by the Guardian, and other outlets, reflecting the government's stance from the initial discovery of the letter.

This is how news works dear

[middlj]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
Such as? Do you have any proof/evidence that these long term effects shall offset the £5bn cost of the wedding?



That much is already evident.



People are "whinging about" a £5bn - a substantial number frankly - loss to the economy, over some wedding. Unless those "some positives" you speak of trump such cost and loss of economic activity in times of recession no less, they have every right to complain about the event. Any rational person would.



Yes, I'm sure that loss of £5bn was worth it to the economy b/c we got to "show a bit or pomp and ceremony"; its not like we're dipping back into recession or anything. Oh wait, we are

Who do you think you are you condescending bitch.