National News Extinction "Rebellion"

Marked Ox said:
You are going to watch an Oxford game, police arrest you "on suspicion", after an investigation that suspicion wasn't proven so released 16 hours later.

Sorry it took while, we were busy and tough that you missed the match you had paid for whilst your following day is screwed up as well.
Click to expand...

That`s life. Its not like Republic folk paid to go to the Coronation that would be silly....

QR said:
What was the suspicion based on? When you realising the was no reason for any suspicion you see how dark this is.
Click to expand...

A copper shipped in from rural Lincs is told to "look out for some folk from Republic who have a big box van full of XYZ".

Copper sees a van and some people who might well not have been co-operative ..... "Ask your boss" etc etc..... copper decides he needs to check the van contains XYZ folk become more obstructive and get arrested "on suspicion".

Maybe the Republic folk should have given the liaison officer a lift in the van?

Or arrived much earlier to allow the kit to be checked?
 
Essexyellows said:
That`s life. Its not like Republic folk paid to go to the Coronation that would be silly....



A copper shipped in from rural Lincs is told to "look out for some folk from Republic who have a big box van full of XYZ".

Copper sees a van and some people who might well not have been co-operative ..... "Ask your boss" etc etc..... copper decides he needs to check the van contains XYZ folk become more obstructive and get arrested "on suspicion".

Maybe the Republic folk should have given the liaison officer a lift in the van?

Or arrived much earlier to allow the kit to be checked?
Click to expand...

The Republic folk would have paid to get there etc etc. And the point stands as this broad and vague law can be applied as such.

And maybe the rural Copper should do his job and contact the specifically named liaison Officer. After all, it is a simple radio call.

Poor effort from you at trying to justify this.
 
Last edited:
chuckbert said:
They did. Every tax payer did whether they went or not.
Click to expand...
As a tax payer, this was something I didn't have a problem contributing a miniscule amount towards.

Unlike my taxes that go to the local council (who seem intent on building houses without sufficient infrastructure); the NHS (when it is impossible to get a GP appointment and I may well be dead before they decide what's wrong with me); the Police (ha!) etc. etc.....
 
brokeandobscure said:
As a tax payer, this was something I didn't have a problem contributing a miniscule amount towards.

Unlike my taxes that go to the local council (who seem intent on building houses without sufficient infrastructure); the NHS (when it is impossible to get a GP appointment and I may well be dead before they decide what's wrong with me); the Police (ha!) etc. etc.....
Click to expand...
I think you'll find private developers build the vast majority of house in this county and local councils don't build infrastructure because they are brassic because the Tories would rather your taxes are directed towards/wasted on their mates business interests.
 
QR said:
I think you'll find private developers build the vast majority of house in this county and local councils don't build infrastructure because they are brassic because the Tories would rather your taxes are directed towards/wasted on their mates business interests.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Point taken.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
Essexyellows said:
Valid point but I`m sure the CEO of Republic isn`t having a cost of living crisis..............
Click to expand...
You're confirming to all you know you've lost the argument by 'going for the man' a lot early in exchange these days.
 
QR said:
You're confirming to all you know you've lost the argument by 'going for the man' a lot early in exchange these days.
Click to expand...

Take your pick really all these groups seem to have someone willing to take the money. 🤷‍♂️

They are not "the people" protesting they are a tiny, vociferous minority* of professional protesters much like JSO et al.

*Sorry for the trigger word. :ROFLMAO:
 
bashamwonderland said:
I hope, if they have a problem about that, they can opt out of the public finance benefits of having a monarchy.
Click to expand...
You, and others, keep talking about the financial benefits of having a monarchy and I have genuine question, is there research that definitely backs that up?

I don't mean that vague notion that they encourage investment, which patently isn't true - investment in business is down to tax rates and breaks, a skilled and affordable workforce, subsidies, ease of market entry, the political climate and a ton of other factors, none of which include whether we have a monarchy.
 
Big Ron said:
You, and others, keep talking about the financial benefits of having a monarchy and I have genuine question, is there research that definitely backs that up?

I don't mean that vague notion that they encourage investment, which patently isn't true - investment in business is down to tax rates and breaks, a skilled and affordable workforce, subsidies, ease of market entry, the political climate and a ton of other factors, none of which include whether we have a monarchy.
Click to expand...
www.independent.co.uk

How much money does the royal family bring in tourism?

Each year, millions of tourists travel to the UK to visit its many historical royal landmarks
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Forbes/Independent crossover so the source will be to your liking.

"While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe."

I remember doubting it when I first heard it. But the research backs it up. As a "light monarchist" I don't understand how republicans can make any decent argument, especially considering the financial benefits, for why the concept of the royal family should be abolished.
 
Last edited:
chuckbert said:
Er. Because he’s earning and therefore paying tax?
Click to expand...

The point is they didn`t specifically buy a ticket, the comparison made regarding football supporters, to attend the event.

They may pay general taxation, they be "tax efficient" ...........but they didn`t lose/miss out on anything.
 
bashamwonderland said:
www.independent.co.uk

How much money does the royal family bring in tourism?

Each year, millions of tourists travel to the UK to visit its many historical royal landmarks
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Forbes/Independent crossover so the source will be to your liking.

"While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe."
Click to expand...
Hmmm, it's not quite the clear cut argument you would have us believe........so if we abolished the royal family and opened up all of these royal palaces and houses on a full-time basis, there is an argument to say we would earn even more money for the public purse, not less. After all, the French and Austrians seem to do very nicely out Versaille and the Schonbrunn Palace respectively.

Likewise, abolition wouldn't make difference to the money generated by the Crown Estate - that is, in a sense, passive income based on years of unmerited inheritance and publicly funded acquisition.

Personally, I find it depressing that the Crown 'owns' nearly 2 million acres of our agricultural land and forest and vast swathes of expensive real estate. They key word here being 'our'.
 
Essexyellows said:
The point is they didn`t specifically buy a ticket, the comparison made regarding football supporters, to attend the event.

They may pay general taxation, they be "tax efficient" ...........but they didn`t lose/miss out on anything.
Click to expand...
Are people visiting them because they are "royal" or because they are historic buildings? Would Buckingham Palace be less of a draw if it were the elected president's residence rather than the King? Same with rental income on crown estate land - would that change if there wasn't a monarchy? Wouldn't it just be land owned by a rich family as it is now .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom