Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Prince Charles ATTACKED by students Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    Sorry, but the 'fees' are not upfront. Seems quite reasonable. So unlike the current system, you don't pay upfront. SO that should encourage more people to go.
    I doubt very much that the prospect of a small mortgage hanging over your head for a few decades after graduation is going to encourage people.

    Contrary to the way the government like to present it, most graduates don't go on to earn megabucks. If you have an outstanding debt of £30-40K to pay off, that's going to become a major impediment to your ability to get a mortgage and have a family.

    The fact that most other developed countries have found ways to charge considerably less for fees (even Ireland with the crippling terms of their IMF loan) suggests that the government has seriously messed up with its public spending priorities.

    Past Conservative leaders have expressed a desire to reduce numbers going to university, and this is largely an ideological move on the part of the Tories. Years down the line, however, this has the potential to impact severely on our national economic competitiveness if the graduate workforce is significantly reduced.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Sorry for going off-topic, but it's more accurate to suggest the medieval period as being subsequently romanticised. When you look at the actual history you don't see much 'romance' or 'chivalry', that is something which tory historians and hollywood have pretty much invented. Royals and nobles of past eras were mostly vicious and/or money-grubbing (that's how power was obtained and maintained in that period). And, I'd love to know how often these medieval 'handsome knights' and 'fair ladies' had a bath; without looking it up I'd bet on not more than once a year at best
    I can absolutely agree with that!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    cute, would you like a virtual straw to clutch at? can easily get a pic for you

    your argument is desperate at best, if you have one that isnt just "I think they go for this reason even though it makes no sense for this to be the case when compared to other historical places people go", then by all means, reply, if not then dont waste my time.
    fair enough, but you seem to think that Buckingham Palace would still get tourists? My fiancee was in Paris the other day and she remarked that not only is the Elysee less open to tourists than Buck House, but that nobody pays attention to it.

    Anyway as I have always said, the tourism argument on all sides is pointless and silly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bookmark)
    Polls have shown time and time again that the majority of people in this country want to keep the monarchy.
    Thats because theyre brainwashed, the average person in england probably has some degree of thinking that all muslims are evil terrorists and we should be in the middle east to save us from terror. The newspapers can brainwash people with any old crap. Newspapers arent going to post about how unfair society is and the differences between the poor and rich in the UK are they. Theyre not going to talk about how unfair tripling student fees are while the banks steal trillions of pounds and one billionaire (the owner of topshop) dodges enough tax every year to replace the increase in student fees. No of course not theyre going to talk about undeserving student "attacking" the rich. I dont see any need to take the middle view that its not prince charles fault hes rich. Thats not going to help make society equal. Im going to say **** prince charles, **** capitalism and inequality. I laughed when I heard he was attacked and good on the students for rebelling against their oppressers instead of putting up with it and being satisfied with crappy tv shows like x factor.
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by gladders)
      fair enough, but you seem to think that Buckingham Palace would still get tourists? My fiancee was in Paris the other day and she remarked that not only is the Elysee less open to tourists than Buck House, but that nobody pays attention to it.

      Anyway as I have always said, the tourism argument on all sides is pointless and silly.
      The Palace at Versailles is still very popular...more than two hundred years after Louis 16th and Marie Antoinette 'vacated' it.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yawn)
      The Palace at Versailles is still very popular...more than two hundred years after Louis 16th and Marie Antoinette 'vacated' it.
      Yes, but as I said, Versailles is a huge, unique, and attractive building, with enormous, gorgeous gardens. Buck House can't possibly compare.
      • Offline

        1
        (Original post by gladders)
        Yes, but as I said, Versailles is a huge, unique, and attractive building, with enormous, gorgeous gardens. Buck House can't possibly compare.
        I haven't seen you make any mention of Versailles on this thread...until now. :confused:

        The thing about tourist attractions is that it is not merely the appearance of a building that attracts tourists, but also the history of the building and what it represents.

        I was in Munich recently and my brother took me to the square where Hitler was arrested before he came to power. On either side of the square was a Church and a municipal building. In between was what looked like a mausoleum with statues of a lion on either side. One was looking straight onto the square and the other has a slight preference of turn of head towards the municipal building. The theory was that the lion was more respectful to civil power than Godly power. Now none of these buildings had a grand exterior and in fact, were very dull and uninspiring. However, tourists flocked to the area because of the significance, the history and the events concerning the area.

        What I'm trying to emphasise is that regardless of whether we have a monarchy or not, tourists would still want to see Buckingham Palace for the very reasons I have cited above.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        I suppose it's all rather academical, though I remain unconvinced
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lewroll)
        They should have flipped the ****ing car over and walked away, with the explosion going off behind them in slow motion. Bloody royals, why cant we move them to a council house in Dagenham, that way we can pay decreased fees.
        Wasn't it you who was criticising me for saying we should hunt chavs like foxes? Hypocrisy at it's highest, I see.

        I can't believe people are attacking the royal family. :facepalm: Some people have no pride, morals, or dignity. They're extremely lucky they weren't shot.
        Offline

        10
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by .Ali.)
        Wasn't it you who was criticising me for saying we should hunt chavs like foxes? Hypocrisy at it's highest, I see.

        I can't believe people are attacking the royal family. :facepalm: Some people have no pride, morals, or dignity. They're extremely lucky they weren't shot.
        Do you understand the concept of humour?

        We dont need the royal family anyway. They do nothing except take millions in taxpayers money (a bit like chavs eh?). The sooner they go the better.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lewroll)
        Do you understand the concept of humour?

        We dont need the royal family anyway. They do nothing except take millions in taxpayers money (a bit like chavs eh?). The sooner they go the better.
        I could say the same to you. If you actually thought I was about to take the shotgun and shoot some chavs, then that says a lot about you...

        I was serious about capital punishment though.

        Yes, we do.

        1) It's tradition and part of our British culture
        2) They attract a lot of money to the UK through tourism
        3) A lot of people support the Monarchy
        4) Princes William and Harry do a lot of charity work
        5) Whatever you think about them, they're people too and don't deserve to be attacked by ruthless thugs.
        Offline

        10
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by .Ali.)
        I could say the same to you. If you actually thought I was about to take the shotgun and shoot some chavs, then that says a lot about you...

        I was serious about capital punishment though.

        Yes, we do.

        1) It's tradition and part of our British culture
        2) They attract a lot of money to the UK through tourism
        3) A lot of people support the Monarchy
        4) Princes William and Harry do a lot of charity work
        5) Whatever you think about them, they're people too and don't deserve to be attacked by ruthless thugs.
        Millions of people dont care about the royal family. Why should all their money go to those inbred royals who do NOTHING. Oh so a bit of charity work makes up for the amount they cost? Education is more important in my book- scrap the royal family, become a republic, and invest more money into the UK for education and other USEFUL things.
        If you want the royals so much (and if other people want them) why dont you pay for them? I agree they dont deserve to be attacked, but theres a lot of things the royal family dont desrve!

        Do you like football? How would you like it if the government started to take money out of our taxes to pay for football? Afterall:
        1) It's tradition and part of our British culture
        2) They attract a lot of money to the UK through tourism
        3) A lot of people support the football
        4) football industry does a lot of charity work (e.g. training underpriviliged kids)
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lewroll)
        Millions of people dont care about the royal family. Why should all their money go to those inbred royals who do NOTHING. Oh so a bit of charity work makes up for the amount they cost? Education is more important in my book- scrap the royal family, become a republic, and invest more money into the UK for education and other USEFUL things.
        If you want the royals so much (and if other people want them) why dont you pay for them? I agree they dont deserve to be attacked, but theres a lot of things the royal family dont desrve!

        Do you like football? How would you like it if the government started to take money out of our taxes to pay for football? Afterall:
        1) It's tradition and part of our British culture
        2) They attract a lot of money to the UK through tourism
        3) A lot of people support the football
        4) football industry does a lot of charity work (e.g. training underpriviliged kids)
        Football isn't head of the Church of England
        Football doesn't hold the same social status
        Many countries play football

        It doesn't hold the unique, cultural grasp of the Royal family.
        Offline

        10
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by .Ali.)
        Football isn't head of the Church of England
        Football doesn't hold the same social status
        Many countries play football

        It doesn't hold the unique, cultural grasp of the Royal family.
        Christianity is slowly dying in the UK (just look at the statistics) Football is stronger than ever
        Football is more important to many people than the is Monarchy.
        Many countries have a royal family.

        The royal family doesnt bring societies together or have as great an influence on peoples behaviour as football does, football is the nations pastime. Millions of people dont sit every week to watch the royal family. The royal family isnt celebrated in nearly evey country in the world (unlike the premier league). Go to any country in the world and you will find someone wearing a premiership shirt. The royal family doesnt raise as many emotions in people as football does. The premier league is the best league in the world. Footballers are more popular than the royal family (david becham for example) so they too also have a high status. Im sure the country would be devastated if a national footballer died.

        So again, I ask the question, how would you feel if money was taken from your taxes to pay for the upkeep of football in the UK (something whic brings in more money and is more popular than the royal family)?
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Bookmark)
        Polls have shown time and time again that the majority of people in this country want to keep the monarchy.
        Polls show lots of things. They've shown time and time again that people have an appetite for hanging.
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        All you people saying they do nothing are plain uneducated. The Court Circular is posted everyday on FB as to what they have been up to and except for Christmas Day and Easter Day; the Queen never has a day off from the official red boxes that pursue her everywhere. I’m going back to 2008 here but the Princess Royal carried out 534 official engagements during the year, while Prince Charles racked up a total of 560. Prince Andrew is United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. The Princes Harry and William carry out less state duties but they have other commitments with the military.

        To compare football to the Queen is plain tarded and insulting, footballs never dedicated there lives to the nation against there own will out of a sense of duty. Footballers wont get a state funeral, no footballer is one of the most respected statesmen in the world and head of state of 16 nations.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lewroll)
        Millions of people dont care about the royal family. Why should all their money go to those inbred royals who do NOTHING. Oh so a bit of charity work makes up for the amount they cost?
        The whole structure of your argument is riddled with inane ignorance one would expect to see on the comments section of the Sun news website.

        Do your research before you spout such drivel, it will make you look a lot less foolish.

        - The Civil List funds the Queen and her consort - the Duke of Edinburgh. They are the only 'royals' to receive taxpayer funding and it is purely for the duties that come with the office of the Head of State. This funding would still be required if the Monarchy was abolished. The Queen receives no salary.

        - The Queen's duties practically mirror that of the ceremonial President of Germany. Would you claim that he does 'nothing'? Get off your ass and research what the Queen and the DoE do - because it is certainly more than 'nothing'.

        - Your 'inbred' jibe does nothing to supplement your argument and just demeans it to that of a impertinent child. Most people will have had some form of inbreeding occur within their family line at one point in history.

        Education is more important in my book- scrap the royal family, become a republic, and invest more money into the UK for education and other USEFUL things.
        Hilarious. This money would go towards the office of the new Head of State. In fact, it would probably be more.

        If you want the royals so much (and if other people want them) why dont you pay for them?
        If you want a university education, why don't you pay for it? If you want the Olympics, why don't you pay for it? Such logic can be applied to most things, and does not act as a credible argument.

        Do you like football? How would you like it if the government started to take money out of our taxes to pay for football? Afterall:
        1) It's tradition and part of our British culture
        2) They attract a lot of money to the UK through tourism
        3) A lot of people support the football
        4) football industry does a lot of charity work (e.g. training underpriviliged kids)
        What a flawed analogy

        The whole taxpayer funding component of your argument is practically invalidated by the agreement surrounding the Crown Estate. I suggest you research it and see how much we benefit from the agreement.
        Offline

        10
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
        The whole structure of your argument is riddled with inane ignorance one would expect to see on the comments section of the Sun news website.

        Do your research before you spout such drivel, it will make you look a lot less foolish.

        - The Civil List funds the Queen and her consort - the Duke of Edinburgh. They are the only 'royals' to receive taxpayer funding and it is purely for the duties that come with the office of the Head of State. This funding would still be required if the Monarchy was abolished. The Queen receives no salary.

        - The Queen's duties practically mirror that of the ceremonial President of Germany. Would you claim that he does 'nothing'? Get off your ass and research what the Queen and the DoE do - because it is certainly more than 'nothing'.

        - Your 'inbred' jibe does nothing to supplement your argument and just demeans it to that of a impertinent child. Most people will have had some form of inbreeding occur within their family line at one point in history.



        Hilarious. This money would go towards the office of the new Head of State. In fact, it would probably be more.



        If you want a university education, why don't you pay for it? If you want the Olympics, why don't you pay for it? Such logic can be applied to most things, and does not act as a credible argument.



        What a flawed analogy

        The whole taxpayer funding component of your argument is practically invalidated by the agreement surrounding the Crown Estate. I suggest you research it and see how much we benefit from the agreement.
        Yes Mrs Thatcher, right away.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      Useful resources

      Groups associated with this forum:

      View associated groups
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.