If the wedding had been done like a small family affair, there would be a huge shit-fight over why the general public were denied the spectacle.
The yanks went to war with Britain to become independent and to set up a government free of any traces of monarchy, yet no one goes bananas over the British Royals more than the USA. They've even tried to invent a sort of royal family themselves with the Kennedys - complete with whackos.
If the UK got rid of Royal Family today, they'd be replaced by someone else. That's how they got started in the first place.
PS. Beatrice in that 'antlers' hat was lucky old Phillip didn't mistake her for a stag and shoot her.
Royal Wedding will cost ?5 Billion
Re: Royal Wedding will cost ?5 Billion
Phwooorr...look at her....CRASH
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Turanhosting
Your post completely and utterly fails to address the points that I made.
I repeat. The entire basis of your post is on this representing a business loss to the country.
The costs you highlight are the loss of productivity costs resulting from a Bank Holiday. Both the TUC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills using the Office of National statistics figures as a guideline estimate those losses to be half of the figure you bandy around from the Telegraph. This does not take into account the tourist expenditure on the day nor does it include all the extra spending that goes with people enjoying a sunny Bank Holiday which would further reduce those losses. Furthermore, this is clearly not just a loss is it? People have an extra day off which is welcome news to the vast majority of people or did I miss the huge campaign not to have a bank holiday?
Secondly given that the audience for this spectacular was over a 1 billion, every estimate I have read would suggest that the tourism spinoff from this event will far exceed the costs to the government of the security/clean up etc at this wedding.
Maybe you just hate people having their meagre number of bank holidays in this country? Let's have CHristmas Day always on a Saturday, shall we? Lets change the title of Good Friday to Good Saturday and Easter Monday can be abolished. Think of the extra productivity this would result in?
Cheers
D
I repeat. The entire basis of your post is on this representing a business loss to the country.
The costs you highlight are the loss of productivity costs resulting from a Bank Holiday. Both the TUC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills using the Office of National statistics figures as a guideline estimate those losses to be half of the figure you bandy around from the Telegraph. This does not take into account the tourist expenditure on the day nor does it include all the extra spending that goes with people enjoying a sunny Bank Holiday which would further reduce those losses. Furthermore, this is clearly not just a loss is it? People have an extra day off which is welcome news to the vast majority of people or did I miss the huge campaign not to have a bank holiday?
Secondly given that the audience for this spectacular was over a 1 billion, every estimate I have read would suggest that the tourism spinoff from this event will far exceed the costs to the government of the security/clean up etc at this wedding.
Maybe you just hate people having their meagre number of bank holidays in this country? Let's have CHristmas Day always on a Saturday, shall we? Lets change the title of Good Friday to Good Saturday and Easter Monday can be abolished. Think of the extra productivity this would result in?
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Turanhosting
Perhaps you could use a more up to date link?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/2 ... rism-boost
Cheers
D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/2 ... rism-boost
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Turanhosting - a challenge
"Yes I did address the points you made,"
No you clearly did not. And you are reduced to spewing out rather childish insults such as "old Stalinist".
1. You start the thread with a subject Royal Wedding will cost ?5 billion.
2. I highlight the fact that this figure from the Telegraph bears no relation to the figures quoted by the TUC and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills based on the Office for National Statistics.
3. If you choose to believe the Telegraph as opposed to the TUC and the ONS, then that is your prerogative, but it does your credibility no good.
The only comment in your reply to my post was on the following lines.
"Pissing away even ?1 million on a wedding"
You clearly have not understood the fact that various estimates would suggest that the global audience of over a 1 billion people will generate ?2 billion in tourism spinoffs over the next few years. Clearly this is just an estimate and like all estimates can be wrong but it appears to show a good return on government expenditure on security and clean-up etc.
Are you going to address the above points or are you going to undermine yourself by continuing with the insults?
Cheers
D
PS If you want to understand why the figures you quote from the Telegraph are bonkers, just ask and I will explain it to you.
No you clearly did not. And you are reduced to spewing out rather childish insults such as "old Stalinist".
1. You start the thread with a subject Royal Wedding will cost ?5 billion.
2. I highlight the fact that this figure from the Telegraph bears no relation to the figures quoted by the TUC and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills based on the Office for National Statistics.
3. If you choose to believe the Telegraph as opposed to the TUC and the ONS, then that is your prerogative, but it does your credibility no good.
The only comment in your reply to my post was on the following lines.
"Pissing away even ?1 million on a wedding"
You clearly have not understood the fact that various estimates would suggest that the global audience of over a 1 billion people will generate ?2 billion in tourism spinoffs over the next few years. Clearly this is just an estimate and like all estimates can be wrong but it appears to show a good return on government expenditure on security and clean-up etc.
Are you going to address the above points or are you going to undermine yourself by continuing with the insults?
Cheers
D
PS If you want to understand why the figures you quote from the Telegraph are bonkers, just ask and I will explain it to you.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Turanhosting
"You can have a small scale wedding which would still look good. But what we saw on Friday was a full-on feudal extravaganza which made no attempt to connect with ordinary people"
What do you suggest? Penge Registry Office or a local parish church in order to connect with ordinary people, followed by a reception in a hotel or Toby Inn? That would connect with ordinary people, I guess.
"but at the same time pretended to connect with the public while spending their money."
Would your alternative wedding have generated the 1 million people on the streets and all the expenditure related to that and resulting estimated ?2 billion spinoffs in future foreign and Uk tourism?
Cheers
D
What do you suggest? Penge Registry Office or a local parish church in order to connect with ordinary people, followed by a reception in a hotel or Toby Inn? That would connect with ordinary people, I guess.
"but at the same time pretended to connect with the public while spending their money."
Would your alternative wedding have generated the 1 million people on the streets and all the expenditure related to that and resulting estimated ?2 billion spinoffs in future foreign and Uk tourism?
Cheers
D