FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Royal Tour Down Under
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why?" The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why?" I believe that their tour would generate multiple times the amount it's costing | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. " Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things." you are clearly against it and that is cool | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? I believe that their tour would generate multiple times the amount it's costing " Can you prove that statement? If so give two examples of how a royal tour benefits the UK? Please do not say tourism! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. you are clearly against it and that is cool " As it happens I am not in favour of frivolity in times of austerity but I am just a kill joy! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things." Yes you are missing things. It's not one big pot that everyone dips into, it's split out so the alleged 2m saving from will and Kate staying home would have stayed with the royals and be spent somewhere else. The funding for the drop in centre will still have been cut as I assume that is managed through local council etc. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. Yes you are missing things. It's not one big pot that everyone dips into, it's split out so the alleged 2m saving from will and Kate staying home would have stayed with the royals and be spent somewhere else. The funding for the drop in centre will still have been cut as I assume that is managed through local council etc. " ...........so its beyond the wit of man (and women) to say well lets keep the family at home or maybe send them to China or India if the trade argument stands up and save the money and use it for something tangible? It sounds like a bureaucratic argument that money cannot be re allocated? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't " Can you back up this spurious point of _iew? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"what was the drop in centre for ? who dropped in ?" It served three purposes firstly it was a food bank second there was a legal clinic three afternoons a week and also supported age concern with morning and activity based therapy for OAPs So a lot of a local community used the facilities | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't Can you back up this spurious point of _iew?" I don't need to because it is my opinion | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"what was the drop in centre for ? who dropped in ? It served three purposes firstly it was a food bank second there was a legal clinic three afternoons a week and also supported age concern with morning and activity based therapy for OAPs So a lot of a local community used the facilities" What's an OAP? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't Can you back up this spurious point of _iew? I don't need to because it is my opinion " Of course it is but opinions are based given with facts? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"what was the drop in centre for ? who dropped in ? It served three purposes firstly it was a food bank second there was a legal clinic three afternoons a week and also supported age concern with morning and activity based therapy for OAPs So a lot of a local community used the facilities What's an OAP?" Old aged pensioner | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"what was the drop in centre for ? who dropped in ? It served three purposes firstly it was a food bank second there was a legal clinic three afternoons a week and also supported age concern with morning and activity based therapy for OAPs So a lot of a local community used the facilities What's an OAP?" Old Age Pensioner you may well be one someday! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't Can you back up this spurious point of _iew? I don't need to because it is my opinion Of course it is but opinions are based given with facts?" Sorry that doesn't make any sense | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't Can you back up this spurious point of _iew? I don't need to because it is my opinion Of course it is but opinions are based given with facts? Sorry that doesn't make any sense" You are asserting that the Royal Tour will "drum up business" what facts do you have to support that opinion? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. Yes you are missing things. It's not one big pot that everyone dips into, it's split out so the alleged 2m saving from will and Kate staying home would have stayed with the royals and be spent somewhere else. The funding for the drop in centre will still have been cut as I assume that is managed through local council etc. ...........so its beyond the wit of man (and women) to say well lets keep the family at home or maybe send them to China or India if the trade argument stands up and save the money and use it for something tangible? It sounds like a bureaucratic argument that money cannot be re allocated?" Of course it's not beyond the wit of anyone but it is a very simplistic _iew on the workings of how money works in the grand scheme of things. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"The diamond jubilee injected £10 billion pounds into the UK economy. Annually the tourist industry in the UK (fuelled by the royal family because no one comes here for the weather) outstrips the automotive industry in this country, so maybe a couple of million is well spent" Can you point me to the factual confirmation of a £10b injection to the economy? Seems to be a lot of tea towels? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. Yes you are missing things. It's not one big pot that everyone dips into, it's split out so the alleged 2m saving from will and Kate staying home would have stayed with the royals and be spent somewhere else. The funding for the drop in centre will still have been cut as I assume that is managed through local council etc. ...........so its beyond the wit of man (and women) to say well lets keep the family at home or maybe send them to China or India if the trade argument stands up and save the money and use it for something tangible? It sounds like a bureaucratic argument that money cannot be re allocated? Of course it's not beyond the wit of anyone but it is a very simplistic _iew on the workings of how money works in the grand scheme of things. " Simplicity is some times a purist form of contention when economic are concerned that is quite apart from the moral opinion! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. Yes you are missing things. It's not one big pot that everyone dips into, it's split out so the alleged 2m saving from will and Kate staying home would have stayed with the royals and be spent somewhere else. The funding for the drop in centre will still have been cut as I assume that is managed through local council etc. ...........so its beyond the wit of man (and women) to say well lets keep the family at home or maybe send them to China or India if the trade argument stands up and save the money and use it for something tangible? It sounds like a bureaucratic argument that money cannot be re allocated? Of course it's not beyond the wit of anyone but it is a very simplistic _iew on the workings of how money works in the grand scheme of things. Simplicity is some times a purist form of contention when economic are concerned that is quite apart from the moral opinion!" Where was the moral opinion? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"what was the drop in centre for ? who dropped in ? It served three purposes firstly it was a food bank second there was a legal clinic three afternoons a week and also supported age concern with morning and activity based therapy for OAPs So a lot of a local community used the facilities What's an OAP?Old Age Pensioner you may well be one someday! " I'll think you will find that term is much frowned on these days, senior citizens maybe at a stretch | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Opinions are based on all sorts of things, facts, myths, something you read last week in Chat magazine. They are not solely based on facts at all because the are nebulous they move and morph depending on mood, gossip, popular media. Facts? Never" That sounds like a no I cannot point to the £10b fact! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. Yes you are missing things. It's not one big pot that everyone dips into, it's split out so the alleged 2m saving from will and Kate staying home would have stayed with the royals and be spent somewhere else. The funding for the drop in centre will still have been cut as I assume that is managed through local council etc. ...........so its beyond the wit of man (and women) to say well lets keep the family at home or maybe send them to China or India if the trade argument stands up and save the money and use it for something tangible? It sounds like a bureaucratic argument that money cannot be re allocated? Of course it's not beyond the wit of anyone but it is a very simplistic _iew on the workings of how money works in the grand scheme of things. Simplicity is some times a purist form of contention when economic are concerned that is quite apart from the moral opinion! Where was the moral opinion?" I think my original post was just that! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"The diamond jubilee injected £10 billion pounds into the UK economy. Annually the tourist industry in the UK (fuelled by the royal family because no one comes here for the weather) outstrips the automotive industry in this country, so maybe a couple of million is well spentCan you point me to the factual confirmation of a £10b injection to the economy? Seems to be a lot of tea towels?" Where is your factual evidence of the visit to nz costing 2m? As far as I can see you've just quoted sensationalist journalism designed to rile the masses. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"If they had stayed at home the drop in centre would still have closed. The funding streams aren't combined. Wow the Royalists are out in force! I do not understand the economics of this post (to which I am replying) The Royals stay at home = £2m saved. Or am I missing something in the stream of things. Yes you are missing things. It's not one big pot that everyone dips into, it's split out so the alleged 2m saving from will and Kate staying home would have stayed with the royals and be spent somewhere else. The funding for the drop in centre will still have been cut as I assume that is managed through local council etc. ...........so its beyond the wit of man (and women) to say well lets keep the family at home or maybe send them to China or India if the trade argument stands up and save the money and use it for something tangible? It sounds like a bureaucratic argument that money cannot be re allocated? Of course it's not beyond the wit of anyone but it is a very simplistic _iew on the workings of how money works in the grand scheme of things. Simplicity is some times a purist form of contention when economic are concerned that is quite apart from the moral opinion! Where was the moral opinion?I think my original post was just that!" Haha ok. Thought you meant me lol | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"The diamond jubilee injected £10 billion pounds into the UK economy. Annually the tourist industry in the UK (fuelled by the royal family because no one comes here for the weather) outstrips the automotive industry in this country, so maybe a couple of million is well spentCan you point me to the factual confirmation of a £10b injection to the economy? Seems to be a lot of tea towels? Where is your factual evidence of the visit to nz costing 2m? As far as I can see you've just quoted sensationalist journalism designed to rile the masses. " The Daily Mail is not known for its republican _iews. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"The diamond jubilee injected £10 billion pounds into the UK economy. Annually the tourist industry in the UK (fuelled by the royal family because no one comes here for the weather) outstrips the automotive industry in this country, so maybe a couple of million is well spentCan you point me to the factual confirmation of a £10b injection to the economy? Seems to be a lot of tea towels?" Not really, i just read the economic press, so am about to leave the house to go on a date, play nice people x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"The diamond jubilee injected £10 billion pounds into the UK economy. Annually the tourist industry in the UK (fuelled by the royal family because no one comes here for the weather) outstrips the automotive industry in this country, so maybe a couple of million is well spentCan you point me to the factual confirmation of a £10b injection to the economy? Seems to be a lot of tea towels? Where is your factual evidence of the visit to nz costing 2m? As far as I can see you've just quoted sensationalist journalism designed to rile the masses. The Daily Mail is not known for its republican _iews. " But it is a paper that needs to sell copies and what sells more than a scandal about the cost of something someone rich is doing? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"The diamond jubilee injected £10 billion pounds into the UK economy. Annually the tourist industry in the UK (fuelled by the royal family because no one comes here for the weather) outstrips the automotive industry in this country, so maybe a couple of million is well spentCan you point me to the factual confirmation of a £10b injection to the economy? Seems to be a lot of tea towels? Not really, i just read the economic press, so am about to leave the house to go on a date, play nice people x" I didn't know that Chat and the economist were on the same shelf? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"The diamond jubilee injected £10 billion pounds into the UK economy. Annually the tourist industry in the UK (fuelled by the royal family because no one comes here for the weather) outstrips the automotive industry in this country, so maybe a couple of million is well spentCan you point me to the factual confirmation of a £10b injection to the economy? Seems to be a lot of tea towels? Where is your factual evidence of the visit to nz costing 2m? As far as I can see you've just quoted sensationalist journalism designed to rile the masses. The Daily Mail is not known for its republican _iews. But it is a paper that needs to sell copies and what sells more than a scandal about the cost of something someone rich is doing? " To be honest the cost is irrelevant its the complete nonsense in wasting resource on the personification of an outdated and irrelevant institution that is the Royal Family. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't Can you back up this spurious point of _iew? I don't need to because it is my opinion Of course it is but opinions are based given with facts? Sorry that doesn't make any senseYou are asserting that the Royal Tour will "drum up business" what facts do you have to support that opinion?" Go google mate everyone in business knows they do I don't know what your problem is its not like proving god exists the facts the royals generate money for the UK is there to see. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't Can you back up this spurious point of _iew? I don't need to because it is my opinion Of course it is but opinions are based given with facts? Sorry that doesn't make any senseYou are asserting that the Royal Tour will "drum up business" what facts do you have to support that opinion? Go google mate everyone in business knows they do I don't know what your problem is its not like proving god exists the facts the royals generate money for the UK is there to see." I have google how much do the royal contribute to the economy..........it sent me to the Royal Household web page. And there is god! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? The royal family drum up trade for the UK, drop in centres don't Can you back up this spurious point of _iew? I don't need to because it is my opinion Of course it is but opinions are based given with facts? Sorry that doesn't make any senseYou are asserting that the Royal Tour will "drum up business" what facts do you have to support that opinion? Go google mate everyone in business knows they do I don't know what your problem is its not like proving god exists the facts the royals generate money for the UK is there to see. I have google how much do the royal contribute to the economy..........it sent me to the Royal Household web page. And there is god!" Sorry NO god! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why?" A break down of who and which dept is paying the £2 mill please. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Its estimated by the Daily Mail of all sources that to send William Kate and the baby on a "Royal Tour" down under will cost a little over £2m. A drop in centre where I used to volunteer has closed because of a funding gap of £100k. I sometimes wonder why? A break down of who and which dept is paying the £2 mill please. " I have not got a clue I was merely quoting an article in a copy of the Daily Mail whilst out earning a corn knowing that the Royal family are helping me out! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |
"Ive removed several posts. Can everyone just drop the personal digs please." Obviously not. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) |