30M from taxpayers' pockets to the Royals

Skylog

On ROPS
On ROPs
Come on @Skylog , I'm looking forward to your answer. I'll even give you some help. Somewhere in the following photo is a clue as to why Theresa May might find it especially embarrassing to show up at the G7 meeting next month, and were something to have gone wrong, having to personally explain to another head of government as to why the UK didn't feel it was worth bothering to arrange for adequate official security for the event. We can even leave Her Majesty and immediate family out of your answer, as apparently you have already discounted them. I'm sure there are other examples in other photos, but we'll just stick with the simple ones here.

Or you could just admit that perhaps the people in charge of things in the UK might possibly have some clue of what they are doing while you have none.

They can afford to pay for the security service so they should the ones who pay instead of the other citizens. Or if they are scared by some terrorist attack they could do a private ceremony.
 
They can afford to pay for the security service so they should the ones who pay instead of the other citizens. Or if they are scared by some terrorist attack they could do a private ceremony.
I think the Security Service is funded centrally, by the government, rather than by the Royals.

You bottom-sniffing cleft.
 
Why should taxpayers pay for it?
Because ultimately it's to their benefit. A minimum of £1.2bn to their benefit.
No wonder socialism in all its forms has always been such a failure, when it's cost-benefit analysis is done by people such as yourself & the maths genius known as the Abbottopotamus.
 
They can afford to pay for the security service so they should the ones who pay instead of the other citizens. Or if they are scared by some terrorist attack they could do a private ceremony.
You're evading it even when the answer is handed to you on a plate. Why don't you simply admit that you don't have the slightest clue of what the real issues are and why the government may need to have direct control of security at events like these?
 
They can afford to pay for the security service so they should the ones who pay instead of the other citizens. Or if they are scared by some terrorist attack they could do a private ceremony.
I've heard one way tickets to Venezuela are going cheap at the moment, someone mentioned it was a Socialist Paradise ?
 
If the new prince is black I will be laughing at all the Arrsers who will be hating the monarchy
Looks at Harry
Looks at Meghan

Considers the use of If viz future children's appearance.

Concludes Skylog is denser than spider


Edit on seeing his subsequent posts viz risk of black king - can we not have the tedious mong hoofed for racism
 
Last edited:
You do know there is a f**k off big airport a few miles to the east with something like 1700 flights a day over the Windsor area ?
I've no idea why they built it so close to the airport. Bit silly really. I hope they've got good double glazing.
 
I've no idea why they built it so close to the airport. Bit silly really. I hope they've got good double glazing.
Ease of access bien Sur - Her Maj dont want to be spending hours in traffic at her time of life

Edit to add and Phil the Greek doesn't look like he would live through a long trip ( If I were him I wouldn't be starting any long books)
 
Why should taxpayers pay for it?
For no other reason than to wind up humourless vindictive little failures like you who seek to pull everyone else down to your level of shittyness.

You want them to pay for it? Fine: 100% of the income from the Crown Estate and other Royal holdings can now go directly to the Royal Family instead of 85% staying with the Treasury for general government spending.
 

Latest Threads

Top