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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    So if there was an 80% Muslim majority in this country, you'd be happy with having a non-Muslim monarchy ruling over you?
    There isn't an 80% Muslim Majority in this country. Are you muslim by the way? I am starting to question whether you create this thread to provoke an argument or doing something daft.

    I am ok with the royal family ruling the UK. I am not fussed in any manner. Like most muslims in the UK are. Like I say, there isn't 80% Muslim Majority in this country.

    I am going to leave at that. You can quote me all you like, I am no longer going to participate. I am wary of your intentions. It seems your hellbent on stirring up trouble. You could have had your view, the fact that you mentioned "Islam" or "Muslim" just highlights that your being mischievous and your trying to create some sort of trouble.

    Like I say, I have no problem with Royal family, I am ok with the Royal Family. I am not fussed. That is a view I believe is shared by most muslims.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Firstly, 66p is less than I thought, and I hate them slightly less now for having read that.

    But I am highly sceptical about the money they supposedly make the country through "tourism". I can't see anyone basing their decision to visit the UK on the royal family, and I think that once here tourists are going to spend a certain amount on touristy crap, and whether it has the queen or tower bridge on it makes no odds. So, I expect that the number of people coming over isn't affected significantly, and the amount spent by each tourist isn't affected significantly. There are bound to be exceptions, but not enough (in my mind) to cover the money that goes in the royal family.

    Besides, why do we need to fund them so highly? Surely cutting the money that continues to go to them and making them pay their own ways through working (or, more likely, investing the money they already have in something that keeps them wealthy without necessitating actual labour) but keeping them around would produce a similar amount of tourism (if it produces any at all) but at a much lower cost?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    There isn't an 80% Muslim Majority in this country
    I didn't say there was.

    So if there was an 80% Muslim majority in this country
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RadioHawk)
    i dont live in a council house but i'm paying for them
    i want my tax back...
    Read OP. Also, considering reporting you to mods for spam.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Damn you're intelligence baffles me. MPs are elected. If they were not elected then they wouldn't be able to be ministers. They are only able to be ministers because they are elected. And some ministers are ministers from past experience e.g. Peter Mandelson.
    And -shock, horror- Mandelson is a Lord, not an MP! How do you square this with your hatred of the monarchy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So, do you also think that people who send their kids to private schools and who receive private health care should be able to opt out of paying for education and the NHS?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Typical middle class TSR Tory-voter. If the Queen makes so much money, then she doesn't need my money to supplement her luxury lifestyle. End of story.
    I'm working class actually and I'm not a tory, but if you cut down on abuse of the benefits system the country would save a lot, but in regards to what the Queen does, 60-66p a year isn't that much.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    You're all making the exact same point so I'll just address them all in one post.
    Yep, the exact same point - you're a moron.

    Of course, you do realise that the Queen voluntarily pays tax, and that is a significantly greater value than the money she receives for performing official duties, which would in any case have to be funded by the tax payer in the event we became a republic, with the added bonus of having to pay a salary to any new head of state, and so it would cost considerably more..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LtCommanderData)
    Firstly, 66p is less than I thought, and I hate them slightly less now for having read that.

    Besides, why do we need to fund them so highly? Surely cutting the money that continues to go to them and making them pay their own ways through working (or, more likely, investing the money they already have in something that keeps them wealthy without necessitating actual labour) but keeping them around would produce a similar amount of tourism (if it produces any at all) but at a much lower cost?
    Please give an example of where the money could be cut.

    Be aware that:-

    The only person who receives money are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
    They only get money for the functions of Head of State that are carried out.
    Any minor royal which gets money for a service they perform has their cost covered by the Queen's money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As of 2003/4, the crown gave 179.3 million pounds to the treasury

    Whilst costing £40 million a year http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/your...al-family.html(So we each give 66p a year, and get a whole load more back)

    And heres some more referencing for you

    Money that the monarchy puts into the treasury: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news...al-results.htm
    The cost of our monarchy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

    So tired of these stupid anti-monarchists complaining about the royals being benefit scroungers
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, no thanks. The Tourism pays for it an more.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    I can only hope the current rates of Islam's expansion continue, if Muslims became a majority in this country I'm pretty sure the parasitic scum known as the monarchy would be otherthrew.

    And just like that you've invalidated your argument.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Read OP. Also, considering reporting you to mods for spam.
    Buy one less freddo and packet of crisps a year (yeah, thats right. I said it! Lose the freddo you fat ****er), you've made you're 66p back. Then give the 66p you made to the kid.
    Problem poor fag?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by gladders)
    Example of where the money could be cut:
    They could pay for their own travel (£6.5 million on travel in a year - if you want to pay to get them places to perform head of state duties, do it more cheaply - and don't pay for any more of their travel) and the "running of the royal household"

    EDIT: In fact, send her on the bus - she's old enough that it'd be totally free!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bosch)
    As of 2003/4, the crown gave 179.3 million pounds to the treasury

    Whilst costing £40 million a year http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/your...al-family.html(So we each give 66p a year, and get a whole load more back)

    And heres some more referencing for you

    Money that the monarchy puts into the treasury: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news...al-results.htm
    The cost of our monarchy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

    So tired of these stupid anti-monarchists complaining about the royals being benefit scroungers

    Good links friend.
    Shame the idiot who wrote OP is to blind in his anti-crown rage to accept it :doh:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    x.

    sorry if Im confusing you with someone else here but are you that working-class white lad who thinks Islam will give working class people and especially children a sense of community and leadership?



    Random! :confused:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tefhel)
    Welcome to the UK. Everyone is paying for things they don't want to.

    The majority of the country doesn't want to be paying for students, so how about everyone pays the full costs of the education, with no government loans or grants?

    If Person A wants to do a media studies degree at Thames Valley, and Person B doesn't want to do a degree, why should Person B be paying for something they don't get enjoyment out of.

    Hey, I'm just using your logic.
    Indirectly, person B benefits from funding students' degrees. Graduates are beneficial to society as a whole; they provide skills and knowledge which contribute towards the growth in the economy in the future. In your example, you've chosen to highlight a somewhat devalued degree at a somewhat disrespected institution, but there are of course, many students that contribute a great deal and are, consequently, a good investment.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LtCommanderData)
    They could pay for their own travel (£6.5 million on travel in a year - if you want to pay to get them places to perform head of state duties, do it more cheaply - and don't pay for any more of their travel) and the "running of the royal household"
    That's what happens now. They get money from the Department of Transport for carrying out Head of State duties, including costs travelling to and from such locations where they're doing something.

    Perhaps it could be a little bit more stringent I'll grant you, but as the bill is specifically only for things the government considers to be Head of State related, I don't see how by any substantive margin.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miu-Miu)
    sorry if Im confusing you with someone else here but are you that working-class white lad who thinks Islam will give working class people and especially children a sense of community and leadership?



    Random! :confused:
    I don't pander to being slotted into any class groups, but that's probably me, yes. Why?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bosch)
    As of 2003/4, the crown gave 179.3 million pounds to the treasury

    Whilst costing £40 million a year http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/your...al-family.html(So we each give 66p a year, and get a whole load more back)

    And heres some more referencing for you

    Money that the monarchy puts into the treasury: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news...al-results.htm
    The cost of our monarchy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

    So tired of these stupid anti-monarchists complaining about the royals being benefit scroungers


    Richard Branson probably brings in (at an arbitrary guess) about £10 billion into the UK economy. Do we have a law in which everyone in the country must pay him, because he does this? No, because he's not parasitic scum.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • 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

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