• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Duchess of Cambridge pregnant

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Originally posted by doomage View Post
    Ha. You plebs would just fritter it away on another foreign footballer or some such.
    Who are you referring to by "you plebs"

    Comment


      #52
      Originally posted by Ketchup View Post
      Who are you referring to by "you plebs"
      Taxpayers.
      Keeping calm. Keeping invoicing.

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by doomage View Post
        Taxpayers.
        Are you not included in that group then?

        And what team would state-funded footballers play for?

        poor arguement

        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by d000hg View Post
          They come to see the buildings because we still have a royal family. The Yanks love the whole idea - they can see old buildings in any European country but they come to London drawn by the queen.
          Who they see ALL the time

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by Ketchup View Post
            Are you not included in that group then?

            And what team would state-funded footballers play for?

            poor arguement
            Poor sense of humour more like.

            Pleb.
            Keeping calm. Keeping invoicing.

            Comment


              #56
              Originally posted by doomage View Post
              Poor sense of humour more like.

              Pleb.
              Clearly.

              Comment


                #57
                Let's put this horse tulip straight to bed. The country in Europe most visited is France. Last time I looked, they didn't have a royal family, but still have palaces.

                In lists compiled of the most visited sights in the world, Trafalgar and Parliament Square come ahead of Buck Pal, and the Louvre, Sacre Coeur, Notre Dame, Versailles, Eiffel Tower and Disneyland Paris all well ahead of it.

                50 most visited tourist attractions in the world:

                Not surprisingly, the French are out in force. How to account for the preponderance of attractions in Paris? According to the latest statistics report from the World Tourism Organization, France receives more foreign tourists per year than any other country -- some 76 million in 2005. Spain followed with 55 million, the United States with 50 million and China with 47 million. Italy rounded out the top five with 37 million (with the U.K. not far behind

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by Ketchup View Post
                  and you are forgetting that that £500m comes into the country, and is not directly offset against the £100m they cost. Some of that £500m will be spent on imported goods for example.
                  And? The cost of upkeep of all those buildings without the family could easily be tens of millions, so my point is even a small reduction in tourism would more than offset this.

                  However it's daft to make the case for keeping/removing them on profitability anyway. If we do that and talk about "think of the hospitals" then if our forebears had thought the same, virtually none of our great buildings would exist in the first place. It would be most cost effective if we all lived in cheap concrete boxes, drove cheap efficient cars, wore cheap durable clothes, and did nothing but work and eat and sleep. But then why bother.
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #59
                    Originally posted by Ketchup View Post
                    Except the £100m PA they cost, think what we could spend that on. Improved transport links, redeveloping run down areas, museums, art galleries, hospitals.
                    Duck houses and Blair force one.


                    £100M is peanuts, its not enough for Barclay's biscuit budget.
                    0.72 Miles of M74.
                    BBC News - The UK's last, great, expensive, short roads
                    1/2 of a lean to on the Tate Modern
                    Why Tate Modern's extension stacks up | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

                    Sorry I prefer her Maj


                    Of course Duchy Originals could be moved offshore and the Queen could charge Blair like attendance fees losing a few quid before paying tax.
                    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                    Comment


                      #60
                      Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                      And? The cost of upkeep of all those buildings without the family could easily be tens of millions, so my point is even a small reduction in tourism would more than offset this.

                      However it's daft to make the case for keeping/removing them on profitability anyway. If we do that and talk about "think of the hospitals" then if our forebears had thought the same, virtually none of our great buildings would exist in the first place. It would be most cost effective if we all lived in cheap concrete boxes, drove cheap efficient cars, wore cheap durable clothes, and did nothing but work and eat and sleep. But then why bother.
                      But the French seem to be doing alright when it comes to tourism, without their royals...

                      Besides, we do have all those nice buildings now, so they can still come and see them.

                      It's a falacy borne of fools that we'd lose money without the monarchy in situ. Jesus, if we sold a the palaces we could recoup an awful lot more than what they bring in each year, protect the buildings, and still have them.

                      I say fook em, let's catch them, and burn them. I am sure you could sell the TV rights to that alone for a few billion...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X