30M from taxpayers' pockets to the Royals

Yet strangely the more a country embraces socialism the less democratic and given to free and fair elections it seems to get - the former Soviet, China, Cuba; the list goes on.

Political parties are the same. The longer the version of the D-word they have in their name (democrat, democratic, et al) the less keen they seem on it - the LibDems being a case in point, at least when it comes to matters European.
 
Have your feet slipped off of the pedals or something?

That's 650 people who clearly have absolutely no clue of what they are doing whatsoever!

Pass that gluepot: I want a sniff.
I'm talking about the people who make the real decisions, not the ones who think they make them. You need to watch more re-runs of "Yes Minister".
 
I'm talking about the people who make the real decisions, not the ones who think they make them. You need to watch more re-runs of "Yes Minister".
Sir Humphrey? I'm not too sure about his level of clue these days. Nor Bernards...
 
Sir Humphrey? I'm not too sure about his level of clue these days. Nor Bernards...
In any event, I doubt the security arrangements for recent wedding were actually decided in detail by a vote of Parliament. Much more likely was that someone whose job it is to figure such things out did an assessment of the situation and made a recommendation as to what was advisable, taking all factors into consideration.

And to go back to the original point I was making, despite the fact that the wedding may have nominally been a sort-of private affair, it wasn't really when you take into account the fact that the personal friends of the happy couple also happen to be the personal friends and family of the leaders of other countries that the UK wishes to maintain good relations with. Surprise, surprise, the Royal Family know important and influential people abroad as well as at home.

And when the UK is at a point in its history when it would really like to make sure that it maintains good relations with the friends it has left, it would be really, really, stupid to not take the security of a high profile event such as this very seriously.
 
Some people take things they read far too seriously...





Scroll down; observe which section of the site this is in.
 
Some people take things they read far too seriously...





Scroll down; observe which section of the site this is in.
I'm not complaining about you, and you're welcome to bring some levity to the thread. You're also welcome to rain abuse down on the heads of those who deserve it as well, the thread being approved for the use of weapons of mass destruction in that regards.

I am however trying to point out the realities of the situation to the very few people who might have thought that the OP may have had a point.
 
I'm not complaining about you, and you're welcome to bring some levity to the thread. You're also welcome to rain abuse down on the heads of those who deserve it as well, the thread being approved for the use of weapons of mass destruction in that regards.

I am however trying to point out the realities of the situation to the very few people who might have thought that the OP may have had a point.
I was recently involved on the periphery of a visit by a Head of State to London. I shudder to think how much it cost but I am aware of the huge efforts put in to get the balance right between visibility, security, right to protest & so forth. There is some political direction being given but ministers and senior civil servants do take the advice from the Met and other agencies extremely seriously. But the alternative - such as someone getting to the principal - cannot be costed (remember the kerfuffle when a Chinese Premier visited and the Met's rather heavy-handed approach?). And the same for the Royal Wedding. I was rather skeptical about it as an event but it was a great spectacle and enormous reputational damage that could have been inflicted on UK plc by some obsessed nut-job ('Harry, you're mine!) or a terrorist launching an attack.

As to the alleged £30M cost - this is aggregated across a lot of departments and has been budgeted for as part of their annual costings. There will have been some additional costs (overtime, protective infrastructure, etc) but certainly not £30M worth. And if I was one of the 2 Bn people watching, I'd want to visit Britain and spend my blats on T&S and tacky souvenirs.
 
I was recently involved on the periphery of a visit by a Head of State to London. I shudder to think how much it cost but I am aware of the huge efforts put in to get the balance right between visibility, security, right to protest & so forth. There is some political direction being given but ministers and senior civil servants do take the advice from the Met and other agencies extremely seriously. But the alternative - such as someone getting to the principal - cannot be costed (remember the kerfuffle when a Chinese Premier visited and the Met's rather heavy-handed approach?). And the same for the Royal Wedding. I was rather skeptical about it as an event but it was a great spectacle and enormous reputational damage that could have been inflicted on UK plc by some obsessed nut-job ('Harry, you're mine!) or a terrorist launching an attack.

As to the alleged £30M cost - this is aggregated across a lot of departments and has been budgeted for as part of their annual costings. There will have been some additional costs (overtime, protective infrastructure, etc) but certainly not £30M worth. And if I was one of the 2 Bn people watching, I'd want to visit Britain and spend my blats on T&S and tacky souvenirs.
The upcoming G7 meeting in Charlevoix in a couple of weeks is estimated to cost $224.6 million and will probably accomplish less in the long run. Security will account for the majority of that.

I was rather skeptical about it as an event but it was a great spectacle and enormous reputational damage that could have been inflicted on UK plc by some obsessed nut-job ('Harry, you're mine!) or a terrorist launching an attack.
It's not just Harry and the rest of the Royal Family whose loss would have harmed Britain. As I mentioned in previous posts, the Royal Family have close friends abroad who also happen to be close friends with or related to influential people in their own country. Politicians may not have been invited, but friends and relatives of those politicians were not excluded if they had the right connections. I don't know exactly how many were at the wedding, but I do know of some who were present and standing very close to the happy couple and who are also close personal friends of at least one head of government that Theresa May will be meeting at the G7. If they got splattered over the landscape by an attack that missed the main targets it still would have made for a rather chilly summit for Theresa May if it turned out that she had skimped on security.

So it isn't just the Royal Family who stand to benefit from the success of this recent event. Britain's diplomatic efforts also can be helped by its success or harmed by its failure. While ideally the affairs of state and the course of history should not depend upon such petty things as the mood or personal grievances of politicians and diplomats, the reality is that it is often so.
 
The upcoming G7 meeting in Charlevoix in a couple of weeks is estimated to cost $224.6 million and will probably accomplish less in the long run. Security will account for the majority of that.


It's not just Harry and the rest of the Royal Family whose loss would have harmed Britain. As I mentioned in previous posts, the Royal Family have close friends abroad who also happen to be close friends with or related to influential people in their own country. Politicians may not have been invited, but friends and relatives of those politicians were not excluded if they had the right connections. I don't know exactly how many were at the wedding, but I do know of some who were present and standing very close to the happy couple and who are also close personal friends of at least one head of government that Theresa May will be meeting at the G7. If they got splattered over the landscape by an attack that missed the main targets it still would have made for a rather chilly summit for Theresa May if it turned out that she had skimped on security.

So it isn't just the Royal Family who stand to benefit from the success of this recent event. Britain's diplomatic efforts also can be helped by its success or harmed by its failure. While ideally the affairs of state and the course of history should not depend upon such petty things as the mood or personal grievances of politicians and diplomats, the reality is that it is often so.

I agree. Irrespective of the leaders who come to London, they all want to meet a 92 year old Great grandmother and get that grip'n'grin photo. It means they've arrived. The Royal Network (tm) is impressive; those who poke fun at 'Air Miles' Andy or Charles just have absolutely no appreciation of the access and influence they have. The briefings written fro them are all about landing points and, increasingly, landing huge deals. Succinctly played in the 'Prince Mark of Bath' episode of The Ambassadors.
 
No idea why you're trying to convince the OP using logic and reasoning. You should know by now it has as much effect as addressing spinach on the volatility of the Albanian Lek.
 
No idea why you're trying to convince the OP using logic and reasoning. You should know by now it has as much effect as addressing spinach on the volatility of the Albanian Lek.
British Spinach? or some foreign muck?
 
Good African marogo. Pays even less attention than British spinach.
I've worked with people who could be outwitted by a potato, and I've had to teach some proper cabbages, but never tried to educate spinach. I applaud your attempts.
 
Well it already has an IQ higher than that of the SA govt so only a matter of time before it stages a coup.

I for one am totally in favour of our new chlorophyll enhanced overlords.
 
Well it already has an IQ higher than that of the SA govt so only a matter of time before it stages a coup.

I for one am totally in favour of our new chlorophyll enhanced overlords.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to vegans
 

Top