The Politics Thread

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

 

Ah right I see what you have done. We were talking about newspapers and now you've moved the goalposts to "all entertainment media". I am therefore bailing. Enjoy talking to yourself.

No if you go back you'll actually noticed the "goalposts" were moved here and I openly said that this is off topic.I am not sure why anyone wants to get in an argument over this specific point because I agree on the issues of tax evasion/ avoidance. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

As I have said in another post, no doubt we would agree on the issues of tax avoidance/ evasion (thin line sometimes). That tax income figure across all entertainment media is NOT zero though. It still generates income & is one of several ways the RF benefits the purse. 

Again no way of linking how royal family actually does this, or indeed even a guesstimate of the amount involved. I'm sure it be a significant part of the 28k that the times paid in tax... Not

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

As I have said in another post, no doubt we would agree on the issues of tax avoidance/ evasion (thin line sometimes). That tax income figure across all entertainment media is NOT zero though. It still generates income & is one of several ways the RF benefits the purse. 

Again no way of linking how royal family actually does this, or indeed even a guesstimate of the amount involved. I'm sure it be a significant part of the 28k that the times paid in tax... Not

And again, it's a sideways step to the topic. I'm not denying the issues regarding tax avoidance/ evasion, I have said this multiple times. It still doesn't change facts on how the RF generates income, this is one of many ways. Of course it'll be less through this particular means than if all news outlets operating in this country, paid stand alone, one nation tax but it doesn't mean it isn't zero tax income. 

As for not being able to link, it is perfectly reasonable to assume these types of public interest stories are run because they are profitable for the companies, they don't run them out of their love for the Royal Family. Same way as it's perfectly reasonable to assume memorabilia is sold because it makes money & that TV stations like ITV sell adverts around the Queens speech and Royal Wedding because... Yep you guessed it, it makes money. 

[bazil85]

On 12/21/2019 at 6:33 PM, Cornwall_Saint said:

Even if it was “profitable” to have them, it is really justifiable to pay one family millions upon millions of pounds for no real reason apart from birth line while many normal families are choosing between heating and eating?

I think you've answered your own question here. If we get rid of a family that is "profitable" to the UK how does that benefit families that are choosing between heating and eating?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

And again, it's a sideways step to the topic. I'm not denying the issues regarding tax avoidance/ evasion, I have said this multiple times. It still doesn't change facts on how the RF generates income, this is one of many ways. Of course it'll be less through this particular means than if all news outlets operating in this country, paid stand alone, one nation tax but it doesn't mean it isn't zero tax income. 
As for not being able to link, it is perfectly reasonable to assume these types of public interest stories are run because they are profitable for the companies, they don't run them out of their love for the Royal Family. Same way as it's perfectly reasonable to assume memorabilia is sold because it makes money & that TV stations like ITV sell adverts around the Queens speech and Royal Wedding because... Yep you guessed it, it makes money. 

You haven't actually managed to link even one pound of income for the UK to the Royal family never mind whether they generate more than their "running costs" .

Try this example -
I could sell my shoes.
This shows that selling my shoes generates income
It doesn't show that selling my shoes generates more income than it cost me to purchase said shoes.

Hope this helps.

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

You haven't actually managed to link even one pound of income for the UK to the Royal family never mind whether they generate more than their "running costs" .

Try this example -
I could sell my shoes.
This shows that selling my shoes generates income
It doesn't show that selling my shoes generates more income than it cost me to purchase said shoes.

Hope this helps.

Are you actually serious? Like as in you genuinely believe the RF doesn't generate much income or are you just trolling here?

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Are you actually serious? Like as in you genuinely believe the RF doesn't generate much income or are you just trolling here?
 

This is what I've been asking you to show for days now. They cost a lot if money, you can't seem to show that they generate it.

The article from the independent that faraway saint posted was a good example of how difficult it is to demonstrate.

[bazil85]

19 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

This is what I've been asking you to show for days now. They cost a lot if money, you can't seem to show that they generate it.

The article from the independent that faraway saint posted was a good example of how difficult it is to demonstrate.

People can think it's difficult to demonstrate all they want, it's not really. The only question for me is around direct and indirect income. They are a massive public interest family. Whether that be tourist related income, memorabilia, selling news stories, life event coverage, these aspects are all demonstrable income generators. Add onto that the Crown Estate, I am very surprised people don't see the income benefit from this family. This is also not to mention the money raised from charities that have members of the family associated. 

Some estimates on what the RF made last year range from £595 million (low end) to £1.8 billion (high end). They're estimated they cost circa £300 million a year (high end). Even at the most pessimistic look at what they bring in, they still outstrip what they cost.  

People can think we'd be better of abolishing the RF, that's fine but what would that even mean? You get rid of them then they would be getting paid direct for their likenesses, stories and events. I don't believe for one second that would be more financially profitable to the UK... I mean would they even have to be set-up to registering their tax in this country under that set-up? What do we do with all their properties and possessions? Do we just take it all back? That would not legally fly. 

[Cornwall_Saint]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I think you've answered your own question here. If we get rid of a family that is "profitable" to the UK how does that benefit families that are choosing between heating and eating?

Because who exactly is profiting? Are we as individuals profiting, or is it those such as the tabloids you mention who are profiting?

If the money we spunk on the royal family was instead used to help those in dire need, we could help pull so many out of poverty. Whether that be through funding for education to give themselves better future prospects, to things like more funding for winter fuel allowance, the millions spent on this one family could directly do so much more for those in need.

[bazil85]

42 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

No, you never. The evidence of that is in this very thread. OK, so you are avoiding the question. Make up your mind, FFS.

Your question was ridiculous and it got the answer it deserved. Observably your go to approach, be as trivial and pedantic as possible. Your question boiled down to, how do we know people selling stories about the RF are making money from the RF interest.

Maybe you should investigate and then you could stop making unsupported assertions. If you knew this was a fact then you must have evidence that you can provide. No need for details, just link to the info. I'm waiting patiently. No? Didn't think so.

They are not unsupported, the information is all there if people want to go investigate themselves. I have no need for you or anyone else's validation on this as I didn't on the other thread. You can comment back as much as you want on the pedantic point, it's no concern of mine.

It's neither, go and read what I said.
So what are you saying about RF specific content? 
And yet it appears to be a first for you. Normally it's total nonsense that you state.
This isn't true. 
The two points of discussion that I told you I was finished with were your bad English and your failure to provide context, so what are you going on about. You are the only one going on about validation, so it seems that you don't care. All you're "I'm right because I say so and don't need to provide evidence, you should just believe everything I say" posts make it look like you are seeking validation from numerous people, especially since you are the one that keeps bringing it up.

So another return to points you were finished with? When you start new points I engage, you observably deflect, see BTB point on Cammy. Again I don't need your validation, to try and make that even simpler for you to understand (tough ask) I don't need you to agree with me and I don't have any interest in providing you evidence for something you could get yourself in a fraction of the time you have spent responding to me. If you don't want to believe me and don't want to investigate yourself, fine. This is why I am questioning why it hasn't been dropped. If you've "lost interest" and I've said I don't care about validation, why are you still banging on about it? I think it's clear you do still have an interest in this... 

Thanks, Rimmer.

I never went off topic. The topics of "discussion" being the two points above, not the thread "topics".

You clearly and observably did. 

I don't believe you. If you have, look harder.

I don't need you to. I've told you and asked the question, if you don't want to point out, fine. Another one we can drop along with your refusal to answer my question.

OK, show me some "peer reviewed" papers on the royal family. This should be good.

No, look yourself. 

You admitted that you "can't Google", I showed it in my quote.

I said I can't google where you have admitted you have been wrong on here in the past because I don't have the specific words used. Nice spin attempt. 

 

 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Because who exactly is profiting? Are we as individuals profiting, or is it those such as the tabloids you mention who are profiting?

If the money we spunk on the royal family was instead used to help those in dire need, we could help pull so many out of poverty. Whether that be through funding for education to give themselves better future prospects, to things like more funding for winter fuel allowance, the millions spent on this one family could directly do so much more for those in need.

The UK government as a collective are profiting, more money goes in via taxable income than goes out to maintain them. 

If the above wasn't true, absolutely. But it is true which means if we do away with the RF, we would be worse of f, meaning it doesn't make financial sense in order to help the poor. 

[Cornwall_Saint]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The UK government as a collective are profiting, more money goes in via taxable income than goes out to maintain them. 

If the above wasn't true, absolutely. But it is true which means if we do away with the RF, we would be worse of f, meaning it doesn't make financial sense in order to help the poor. 

Can you explain to me how seeing our tax money cover nursery fees for the likes of George and his siblings (canny remember their names) benefits us?

A few days ago one of the oldies got rushed into hospital. I presume he wasn’t sat there waiting an hour for an ambulance. The chances are their care is private, and not down at somewhere like the RAH waiting four hours to be seen. Highly unlikely that he needs to book an appointment with the GP at the local surgery. That private cost is on us too, how is it benefitting us?

Lets say the Royal Family’s money was re-invested, perhaps into covering the funds for our future doctors and nurses. A bigger incentive for younger ones to take the challenge on knowing they won’t be left with a mountain of debt. Long term, it would help fill some of the gaps being left as EU citizens abandon the UK.

As most trained would be local, the chances are their own money would go straight into the UK economy. Indeed, the tax revenue raised from these people would be a solid amount of cash.

Just one idea. We do not need this continued birth line having dominance over us. The French have proven it isn’t needed, we can do.

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Can you explain to me how seeing our tax money cover nursery fees for the likes of George and his siblings (canny remember their names) benefits us?

A few days ago one of the oldies got rushed into hospital. I presume he wasn’t sat there waiting an hour for an ambulance. The chances are their care is private, and not down at somewhere like the RAH waiting four hours to be seen. Highly unlikely that he needs to book an appointment with the GP at the local surgery. That private cost is on us too, how is it benefitting us?

Lets say the Royal Family’s money was re-invested, perhaps into covering the funds for our future doctors and nurses. A bigger incentive for younger ones to take the challenge on knowing they won’t be left with a mountain of debt. Long term, it would help fill some of the gaps being left as EU citizens abandon the UK.

As most trained would be local, the chances are their own money would go straight into the UK economy. Indeed, the tax revenue raised from these people would be a solid amount of cash.

Just one idea. We do not need this continued birth line having dominance over us. The French have proven it isn’t needed, we can do.

It’s all bottom-line stuff. We pay money to that family, they generate income through many different means. If we paid more than they generated I would fully see the point but that isn’t the case. You also need to weigh it up against what the situation would be if they were abolished. If the RF were abolished tomorrow, they would still easily be able to generate massive income personally, the difference would be more of that income would just go to them as individuals/ company. By the same tax avoidance/ evasion debate as the papers, who’s to say they wouldn’t move their business holdings more offshore and avoid tax? So many other rich people do it, I don’t see the Royal Family not taking advantage of the same. There’s lost income right there.

That “oldie” was taken in for a scheduled appointment and it was purely precautionary. On the same day, arguably the biggest vote in recent parliament history took place. Regardless the “oldie” still became the number 1 trending person in the UK & one of the top globally. Same as celebrities and their profiles, such public interest generates income, income generates taxes. As above if that was to happen after the abolition, the rights to the income would be to the individuals/ company as opposed to the crown and as such the UK income that generates.

Your point on reinvestment defies logic. If we are reinvesting the circa £300 million we give to the RF and don’t give them a penny, it means we lose the £595 million - £1.8 billion (granted some will remain taxable) they make us to invest because it’s either lost through not having an RF or getting paid to the people themselves.

We can reinvest the money you claim if we wanted, the difference being, it would be a hell of a lot more available by keeping the RF.

The end of the French monarchy is nothing to be looked up to and completely irrelevant to any 2019 possibility. I doubt there would be any lawful way we could just strip them of their assets. If the RF go, they would be going at massive personal gain and would retain all their rights to use their likenesses for memorabilia and any future reference to them at Buck palace or any other museum/ tourist attractions. The same way as you generally inherit your parents estate, I don’t see why the same wouldn’t apply. We can talk about the blood stained past of the monarchy but it ain’t much different to practically any government ancient history.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

People can think it's difficult to demonstrate all they want, it's not really. The only question for me is around direct and indirect income. They are a massive public interest family. Whether that be tourist related income, memorabilia, selling news stories, life event coverage, these aspects are all demonstrable income generators. Add onto that the Crown Estate, I am very surprised people don't see the income benefit from this family. This is also not to mention the money raised from charities that have members of the family associated. 
Some estimates on what the RF made last year range from £595 million (low end) to £1.8 billion (high end). They're estimated they cost circa £300 million a year (high end). Even at the most pessimistic look at what they bring in, they still outstrip what they cost.  
People can think we'd be better of abolishing the RF, that's fine but what would that even mean? You get rid of them then they would be getting paid direct for their likenesses, stories and events. I don't believe for one second that would be more financially profitable to the UK... I mean would they even have to be set-up to registering their tax in this country under that set-up? What do we do with all their properties and possessions? Do we just take it all back? That would not legally fly. 

Finally some figures, thanks.
Now we can move onto the legitimacy of these figures and also how those who provide them have a bias in the debate on the royals?

No one is debating that there is great public interest in the Royal family, however it is waning with each generation. There is however greater public interest in celebrities like the Kardashians. The difference is the general public have a choice in funding them.

[faraway saint]

On 12/20/2019 at 5:21 PM, TPAFKATS said:

The Crown Estate belongs to the UK. Its ours, the Queen is a figurehead unless you think a hereditary monarch should own and rent out the seabed, shopping centres etc, etc.

I'm not getting into these long winded exchanges that you post continually for days on end. If you want that contact bud the baker or buddin EK.
It's nearly Christmas - I've got grinching to do.

How's this working out? 

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Finally some figures, thanks.
Now we can move onto the legitimacy of these figures and also how those who provide them have a bias in the debate on the royals?

No one is debating that there is great public interest in the Royal family, however it is waning with each generation. There is however greater public interest in celebrities like the Kardashians. The difference is the general public have a choice in funding them.

11 days later.......................still going strong. 

[bazil85]

17 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Finally some figures, thanks.
Now we can move onto the legitimacy of these figures and also how those who provide them have a bias in the debate on the royals?

No one is debating that there is great public interest in the Royal family, however it is waning with each generation. There is however greater public interest in celebrities like the Kardashians. The difference is the general public have a choice in funding them.

As with all figures and views discussed, scrutiny should be applied, this includes your own. That's why when people say "prove it" or "show a link" it makes little sense, you have to dedicate a fair bit of time online to get clued up on this subject. Believe me, not everything is pro Royal. 

As for the waning interest, that might be true to an extent by percentage of overall population might have fallen but the actual ability to generate income has increased massively. There are so many more avenues to generate income in this generation than the previous one, and when we go back even further in time that's even more true. With the connectivity of the world and sharing of information and public interest stories, the opportunity to exploit these income streams are so much higher. 

Kardashians are a really strong example, pretty sure a few of them are now billionaires, think of the money they've made companies through TV deals, advertising, merchandise. The Royals are a tourist trap, to me they're no different. Now if the Royals went standalone, I still believe they would generate more than them, even if they didn't, it's still money better going into the government purse. 

[bazil85]

9 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Deflection noted.

Know what they say about imitation and flattery. I have not deflected though, you are wrong. 

Again, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. It's not for anyone else to look up evidence to back up your claim. So, show your evidence. Also, again, the only one bringing up "validation" is you, it looks like it is important to you and it looks like you are obviously seeking it from others. You must have a really low self esteem to be seeking reassurance on a football forum. It appears that you crave attention, even (or possibly especially) negative attention.

And again, I don't care if you want evidence, if you want it that bad go look for it, I fully believe common sense will tell people it's there. I have no interest in pandering to your pedantic nature. I'm bringing up validation to say I don't need it (and it's only being repeated because you've been dishonest about losing interest). To yet again try and make this even simpler for you to understand. I don't need you to look at evidence I get and either accept (validate) it or continue this part of the argument. You have said you aren't interested so again, not sure why you can't drop it? If you drop it as you've claimed you aren't interested then that would be the end of it, you seem incapable. My only conclusion is you ARE interested in me going and getting evidence (your last post verifies this) for something that is very clear and easy for you to source yourself. I'm not going to provide it for this reason, you can continue to bring it up if you want, but to me it just shows your dishonesty regarding not being interested. 

Again, go read what I posted.

I've been very clear with you, I can't see any question not answered. As such my opinion is this is deflection. 

Yes, it is true.

Good comeback. 

Lot of nonsense that I have already replied to previously, more evidence of your poor command of the English language and blatant falsehoods. Do you really think that just repeating the same nonsense will get you the "victory" that you obviously crave? It's not worth my time.

Is this a return to closed points? I don't crave any victory, I have said before I quite enjoy this part of BAWA. I am simply pointing out where you are being dishonest, statements of fact at this point. 

Where, exactly?

It is very much observable that several topics are being discussed over the two chats. 
Again, previously dealt with.

Sure has been

Deflection noted.

as has this

Not spin, but you did walk into admitting that context is important whereas before you were saying that it was just thinking that someone was capable of saying such things that was important. Thanks, fishy fishy.

Incorrect again, the points are completely different as one can very easily be validated and the other would be near impossible without guidance. It is a clear spin attempt. You've now thrown in some (very original) fishing, something else in my experience that relates to deflection. 

Over to you, Fishy Rimmer.

 

 

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Krankies therapist said:

The frenchies had the right idea.  Get rid of their royals but keep the palaces for tourists to gawp at. 

Ov wit eir heids 🤣

[proudtobeabuddy]

No need to scrap Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland when we gain independence, she can visit whenever she wants.

Edited December 24, 2019 by proudtobeabuddy

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

It's not imitation, it's taking the piss out of your stupid, immature phrases. You do almost nothing but deflect.

Hmm, maybe more getting back to the you getting upset?

I said "show your evidence" because I know that you can't, even though I knew you would say that you won't. You clearly are looking for validation, probably of "your place in the hierarchy on BAWA", not just your "facts". You also clearly like to be in control but you can't seem to manage it on here with anybody - must annoy the shit out of you. When you grow up and get a girl (or boy) please don't treat them like that, it isn't nice. Or maybe you've got a school project to complete on the royals for after Xmas and you are looking for others to do the groundwork for you. You are aware that all the work should be your own, aren't you? Cheating Fishy Rimmer. Why are you incapable of understanding exactly what I said I was no longer interested in? To clarify, I am no longer interested in you supplying evidence of the context for Faraway's patter that you possibly copied and pasted in a post of your own. I say possibly because you never supplied evidence that he even said those things, never mind the context they were in. This does not mean that I will never ask for evidence of anything ever again. That would be a different thing. Do you think that all evidence is the same?
It also doesn't mean that I can't mention "lack of evidence" on a different point.

And he still goes on and on... I have given you the option to drop something you have "lost interest in" (onto that later) you have desperately and repeatedly tried to hold onto it showing your dishonesty. Observably I don't need validation as I am the one trying to do you a favour by letting you drop the subject. I am not annoyed at all, if you want to be honest with yourself that this is very important to you, just say. I still won't give you evidence you could very easily get yourself but at least it'll give you some closure you desperately need around your issues on this subject that's clearly out of your control. I'm maybe just a wee bit too smart to fall for your attempt to spin that the other way. 

The "grow up" "school project" and "Rimmer" stuff also seems like a very strong sign you're still upset. Generally when people can't control something and it frustrates them, they lash out with childish comments, that's clearly what you're doing. 

We do however make some progress further down and it does go full circle to validate you do care and it upsets you that you can't control what I do regarding this subject. With your point on what you are and aren't interested in that really is great, only took us about 17 years (not literally). Unfortunately, it's tough luck for you because I have no desire to go and look out the evidence for you. You'll just have to fume, sorry. Maybe you'll get over it in time. 

That's not what that was about, so stop deflecting.

I have not deflected

Thanks, Cheating Fishy Rimmer.

See above regarding the upset, it's very clear. 

As I said, already dealt with, not worth my time.

Whole pile of things not worth your time (apparently) now. Still seems like so much of my conversation does interest you and is worth your time. I am flattered. I can also reciprocate, it's good banter for me on BAWA.  

Wrong. Everything that I "brought up" was in relation to the point. For example, saying that the burden of proof is on the asserter is not a new point, it is pointing out that you made the assertion about Faraway's patter, so it is you who should supply the proof about about it. You know, it was in relation to the point that I was talking about. Are you really that dim?

As I have said, you've more or less beaten yourself either way. There's enough crossover on the two different threads that shows you returning to points or starting new ones, something you were critical of me regarding BTB & Cammy 

Glad you agree that you were wrong.

Another common BAWA technique, used it myself in the past to get a reaction. Unfortunately it's well known, saying it doesn't make it true. 

Covered above.

Sure has 

It's totally irrelevant if the points are completely different or whether one is a lot more easily verified. The point is that you previously ... you know, it was in my last post, I'm not repeating it again. My fishing was not related to deflection, it was to get you to admit something - and you did, thanks for that.

Your fishing (very original) was related to deflection, very clear. I also think it's very clear I can't easily search and verify when you last admitted you were wrong, I don't see any questions I haven't answered and I'm not going to research a subject for you that you can do yourself & anyone doing a decent job of it will know is pretty time consuming. You don't understand that, fine. 

Back to you Cheating Fishy Rimmer.
More evidence you're upset to end on this IMO. 

 

 

 

[shull]

 

[faraway saint]

Cracking programme on BBC 1 about the Royal Family.

Catch it on I Player, especially Delpierro, he'll love it. 

[faraway saint]

Crowds out in force at Sandringham, seems people are interested in the Royal Family after all. 

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Aye, but how much will the country make out of this event? No doubt a certain poster will have the evidence on that, but he'll refuse to tell anyone.

I don't know the figure but money will be made. 

[Cornwall_Saint]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Crowds out in force at Sandringham, seems people are interested in the Royal Family after all. 

Last season Aberdeen had an average attendance of just under 15,000, but I wouldn’t assume that means most of the UK are interested in them.