Groups

    RAF uses new self healing planes.

    "After a former RAF officer claimed Prince William accidentally grounded a plane during training last year the Ministry of Defence has spoken up in the royal pilot's defence.

    An MoD spokesman says "no damage was done" during the incident, which took place while the second in line to the throne was landing a high-powered Tucano plane during his 12-week pilot training stint with the RAF.

    Retired officer Joe Watt says William grounded the aircraft after pressing the wrong switch and "overcooking" the engine. Although the plane was out of action for a few days after the incident last year, checks confirmed no lasting damage was done."

    The link for the article is below - does it sound like its lying to cover things or what?

    Just the next cover up after the "essential training flights" that were subsequently shown to be the public paying for a royal to fly to his burds house for his jollies.

    29 Comments

    Ain't that what "training" aircraft are for???

    Or am I missing something??

    lots of tucano pilots have done this, no biggy...

    ms2005;4919425

    Ain't that what "training" aircraft are for???Or am I missing something??



    lilsmithy;4919659

    lots of tucano pilots have done this, no biggy...



    Both valid points. I think the more interesting talking point here is that the OP reads hellomagazine.com :oops:

    Original Poster

    ms2005;4919425

    Ain't that what "training" aircraft are for???Or am I missing something??




    Yes you are - the issue is the cover up - not the training error.

    However, regarding training. Why are taxpayers funding the training of a pilot when it is really just going to be used for his own benefit. Much the same as when the forces funded Fergies helicopter lessons, as the forces would not train someone who had stated plans to leave shortly after their training.

    His brother was sent back from Iraq as it was seen to be too risky for him to be there - so this is just really private flying lessons for a guy from a family who could afford them anyway - but chooses to milk us for that little more.


    lilsmithy;4919659

    lots of tucano pilots have done this, no biggy...



    But the problem is risking a publicly owned plane when its really just flying lessons for a royal.

    Original Poster

    dcx_badass;4920042

    I'm sure he doesn't personally decide to cover it up though.




    He has no need to try to cover it up - when they have hoards of publicly funded toadies to do it for them.

    Just remember - the word was the queen does not fart. Clearly it comes out someone elses **** just like her spending comes out someone elses pocket.

    Original Poster

    Jonny_K;4919725

    Both valid points. I think the more interesting talking point here is … Both valid points. I think the more interesting talking point here is that the OP reads hellomagazine.com :oops:




    It came up as a story in my Google newspage, whichis set to include aviation articles. :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:

    HONEST!!! PLEASE BELIEVE ME!!!!!!!!

    Original Poster

    OK - own up - who clicked it?

    Banned

    tinkerbell28;4935504

    Ibiza, what's with the disdain against the armed forces, the RAF in … Ibiza, what's with the disdain against the armed forces, the RAF in particular, and the NHS, I noticed earlier. Just curious as this is the impression I get from your posts.



    probably rejected.....

    seems quite jealous of the 2 princes as well from the posts

    get over it, they are royalty and bring a lot of cash into this country with tourists despite the negativity from press etc

    better to use the raf than to have their own anyways

    Original Poster

    tinkerbell28;4935504

    Ibiza, what's with the disdain against the armed forces, the RAF in … Ibiza, what's with the disdain against the armed forces, the RAF in particular, and the NHS, I noticed earlier. Just curious as this is the impression I get from your posts.



    I have nothing against the armed forces - having worked for the RAF, also being a pilot (at my own expense - until I felt the 7 gallons an hour I was turning into exhaust was not justifiable as a hobby), and both my parents were in the forces (my dad was also a fighter pilot). So I think you imagined there being an RAF issue. However, I do dislike where they have found themselves, when not protecting UK interests, and just really being cannon fodder to up american numbers. Additionally, my dad was decorated for bringing a plane home after being shot badly in the arm, but others in the same flight were not so lucky, having baths places beneath their planes - and what was left of their bodies being hosed out.

    I dislike the entire principle of royalty however, and all the hangers on. Various aspects prompt this - primogeniture, nepotism, monopolistic competition applied to people, and the waste of money that would have been enough to sort at least the one dodgy hospital referred to below.

    The NHS is dire. Terrorist in the UK this century have killed fewer than one hospital managed on its own by managing to keep its spending down. Terrorists have also killed fewer this century than the number who starve to death in hospitals every three or four months in the UK, and more people die from infections caught in hospital than die in road traffic accidents. Levels of competence in the NHS stands to only make lawyers healthy.

    Does that address your issues?

    Original Poster

    For those who think the royal family bring in money for tourism (other than being an excuse promulagated to keep this outdated tradition) - think how many times you have gone abroad to see the royal family in another country - and I think you might suddenly realise your are being conned.

    Royalty is an anachronism that discriminates against women and catholics, and obviously by its nature is nepotistic. Anyone favoring royalty - its either unaware of the facts - lack the capacity to see the problem - or is benefiting from that unjust system.

    Its also worth adding that the two kissing cousins currently holding the fort are both great grandchildren of Queen Victoria - but thats hardy new in a long line of inbreds.

    Banned

    free the weed


    on second thoughts.......keep off it^^^^^^^

    Banned

    casparwhite;4936615

    free the weedon second thoughts.......keep off it^^^^^^^



    tinkerbell28;4936660

    Hmmm indeed, well considering you once took the oath of allegiance maybe … Hmmm indeed, well considering you once took the oath of allegiance maybe it's a good job you are no longer serving if you ever were, with that opinion of HRH. Edit, my mistake, you worked for the RAF not IN the RAF. Big difference, private contracts are why the MOD is so short of cash for those actually serving.Also if the Nhs is such a mess and you don't want people treating you, I shall remember that if I ever go back f/t and your child needs nursing. I won't refuse, I will just remind you of your disdain:thumbsup:



    :?

    Original Poster

    dcx_badass;4935682

    End of the day percentage wise we don't spend that much on the Armed … End of the day percentage wise we don't spend that much on the Armed Forces, compared to other countries the prince's live tame lives, go look at a Saudi prince or something.



    Sadly your claims of our military sending compared to other countries is rubbish.

    The UK is currently has the fourth highest spending country for military expenditure on the planet. Normally it is the second highest behind the USA (who normally spend close to 50% of the total world expenditure), but France's recently joining Nato, and starting taking part in the middle east has upped their spending to third highest, and China recently replaced the UK as the second highest spender on its military.

    However, when these figures are divided by the population of the country - the UK spends more per person than any other nation excluding the USA - with the UK spending very close to $1000 per man woman and child - but the USA manages well over $2000 per head.

    en.wikipedia.org/wik…res

    en.wikipedia.org/wik…ion

    I feel the accuracy in the first part of your post is mirrored in the logic of your second part.

    Original Poster

    tinkerbell28;4936660

    Hmmm indeed, Ibiza, well considering you once took the oath of allegiance … Hmmm indeed, Ibiza, well considering you once took the oath of allegiance maybe it's a good job you are no longer serving if you ever were, with that opinion of HRH. Edit, my mistake, you worked for the RAF not IN the RAF. Big difference, private contracts are why the MOD is so short of cash for those actually serving.Also if the Nhs is such a mess and you don't want people treating you, I shall remember that if I ever go back f/t and your child needs nursing. I won't refuse, I will just remind you of your disdain:thumbsup:



    How self inflating your thinking you would have a say. :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:

    Also - I worked as MOD staff for the RAF - not contracting, but on secondment.

    Original Poster

    dcx_badass;4936863

    I never said compared to other countries, I compared the prince's Love's … I never said compared to other countries, I compared the prince's Love's to the lives of prince's in other countries. And I said percentage wise we don't spend much of the total country expenditure which according to the CIA World Fact book in 2005 is only 2.4% of the total GDP.



    What percentage of your household income is $1000 per man woman and child, divided by the gross income?

    If a single parent had three young kids, their share would be close to 50% of what they lived on.

    As I said before - the entire concept of royalty is an inequitable anachronism - so to compare one prince to another is like offering a choice between syphilis or gonnorea rather than the obvious choice that none would be better.

    Also nobody mentioned how often they had gone abroad to see another country's royalty yet.

    Banned

    lol ill have some of whatever you're on mate

    Personally I would behead the monarchy without a second thought. ( No not the people, the institution )

    Why should anyone be BORN into a position of respect.

    Let people EARN it.

    And I don't see why someone should be able to abuse this position and any amount of tax payers hard won money just to fulfil their own selfish needs.

    How many people actually come to England " to see the Queen" actually get to meet her or even see her from afar? They might visit Buck Pally... but do you really think she has them for tea? We don't need a continuing presence of "Monarchy" for tourism. The buildings and history will remain.

    Ibiza your opinions were interesting to read even if i diasagree with them.

    I do support the Monarchy (And i'm a southern irish female catholic) for a number of reasons. One is that I was a history student and found the monarchy line fasinating especially how each sucessor adapts to the climates of society, economic and social changes. I think the UK monarchy is important due to it's history and it's view as a time honoured tradition. Some may think this tradition is 'out of date' but they are figure heads under which the whole UK can unite. Also I have visited other countries with a monarchy- Spain and Holland. Others I would like to visit but I cannot afford to go. Infact April 30th I will be in Amsterdam celebrating 'Queens Day' which I am very looking forward to see as it's a national holiday to promote national unity and togetherness. Which will be a cultural and educational experience to see.

    People will always be fasinated with the royals as it's a position that can't be achieved or earned unlike a Prime Minister position. Also I find people are to blame when they blow the royalists out of proportion that they are no longer deemed as 'human' and when they make mistakes like people do, it is held against them in a humiliating manor.

    AIso a report about 10 months ago it was said the cost of the royal family was just 66p. Which I'm pretty sure is cheaper then my wheelie bin. Infact I prefere to pay that measly 66p to the royalist then to help fund Bank Managers pensions who arw granting themselves massive windfalls with the UK tax payers money when they have contributed to this financial crisis that we have found ourselves in.

    Is it not better to know the devil you know? Lets have a look at history without a royalist or a 'higher' power then the government. Millions of people couldn't be wrong when they voted in Adolf Hitler, could they? Or when the Italians voted Mussolini into a position of power.

    Now I would like to point out that I do support the monarchy but only in a constituancy power position, not absolute power.

    In regards with Prince William and his training excersises. When a royalist become head of the military, if only in name would it not be correct if they actually took the time to train and be educated in the military even if it's just to provide a self importance claim. Personally it doesn't hurt to have the figure head of the military to have the military knowledge. Common sense really. Also I didn't realise when you joined any aspect of the military you pay them for your training. I thought the tax payers pay for those who have chosen to go into training, but I could be wrong....

    In regards with the NHS. Ibiza you can always go to America and see how things work over there. Infact I prefere you would. And I would like to point out infection is everywhere, even in those rich hospitals that promote 'cleanliness' still battle against all types of infections and still lose. Such infections as MRSA is still found in every hospital. Also most infections are brought into the hospital by people and spread even more then people are too lazy to use the hand cleansers or even wash their hands.

    Be glad that those drs and nurses that you look at with such distain will still treat you to their best of the abilities and the best of care that they can offer because that is their job and one they do day in and day out very sucessfully.

    Original Poster

    tinkerbell28;4938446

    Really well then PW will be more use than a RAF wannabe, so get off your … Really well then PW will be more use than a RAF wannabe, so get off your soapbox. He will actually become a search and rescue pilot.Who will be on call to rescue the people of the country, when the big floods hit, when children go missing, when people get stuck out to sea/on land. He will be using his training to save the lives of the people of this country.People who volunteer to do this kind of work full time, and dr's and nurses, not a light weight MOD worker who does the easy stuff, are much better people than you will ever be.Show your disdain for those in the services, those in the NHS, all well and good and until you need then one day, foolish.



    I had no urge what so ever to be in the RAF- so you are entirely wrong in that respect - you clearly just imagined it. Do you imagine many things like that?

    It will be interesting to see how long William will be a search and rescue pilot - other than from a similar perspective to his essential training exercises which were really flying to his burds house for his jollies - then clearly saying he is flying in that area to rescue someone would be just as good an excuse.

    Furthermore why are you listing minority roles of the services - when I criticed the royal aspect. Although, if its royals that are doing everything you list then they will be too knackered to abuse public funds - which can only be a good thing.

    Also - you have still never said which country you visited to see their royalty. Its none isn't it - pretty close to the number who come here to see the queen. So was that a silent denial of the accuracy of what you said?

    I am sorry you see the MOD as lightweight - especially after mentioning many things they oversee or co-ordinate in your post. Its quite unusual for someone to list what they regard as important then criticised those who oversee it. Do you contradict yourself often?

    By I can only presume you see the MOD as lightweight compared to the NHS - as the NHS kills far more the the MOD could ever manage.

    ]By starvation.

    ]Your own former 'profession' even seems to think 10% are at risk.

    ]Or how about Mid Staffordshire - who have killed more than any middle eastern terrorists in the UK

    ]But that was just the tip of the iceberg.

    Your attitude is actually so sad its become entertaining, as you are so distanced from reality.

    So perhaps you better not have too much faith in the NHS, as its amazing you can stick up for it clearly shows you were either blind to what was happening - or choosing to turn a blind eye.

    But with the way you are acting it would probably be beneficial to look for problems with the NHS.

    ]As they are killing 4 people a day who act like you do!

    ]Perhaps both you and the NHS should clean up your acts!

    cdemico;4939298

    Ibiza your opinions were interesting to read even if i diasagree with … Ibiza your opinions were interesting to read even if i diasagree with them.I do support the Monarchy (And i'm a southern irish female catholic) for a number of reasons. One is that I was a history student and found the monarchy line fasinating especially how each sucessor adapts to the climates of society, economic and social changes. I think the UK monarchy is important due to it's history and it's view as a time honoured tradition. Some may think this tradition is 'out of date' but they are figure heads under which the whole UK can unite. Also I have visited other countries with a monarchy- Spain and Holland. Others I would like to visit but I cannot afford to go. Infact April 30th I will be in Amsterdam celebrating 'Queens Day' which I am very looking forward to see as it's a national holiday to promote national unity and togetherness. Which will be a cultural and educational experience to see.People will always be fasinated with the royals as it's a position that can't be achieved or earned unlike a Prime Minister position. Also I find people are to blame when they blow the royalists out of proportion that they are no longer deemed as 'human' and when they make mistakes like people do, it is held against them in a humiliating manor.AIso a report about 10 months ago it was said the cost of the royal family was just 66p. Which I'm pretty sure is cheaper then my wheelie bin. Infact I prefere to pay that measly 66p to the royalist then to help fund Bank Managers pensions who arw granting themselves massive windfalls with the UK tax payers money when they have contributed to this financial crisis that we have found ourselves in.Is it not better to know the devil you know? Lets have a look at history without a royalist or a 'higher' power then the government. Millions of people couldn't be wrong when they voted in Adolf Hitler, could they? Or when the Italians voted Mussolini into a position of power. Now I would like to point out that I do support the monarchy but only in a constituancy power position, not absolute power.In regards with Prince William and his training excersises. When a royalist become head of the military, if only in name would it not be correct if they actually took the time to train and be educated in the military even if it's just to provide a self importance claim. Personally it doesn't hurt to have the figure head of the military to have the military knowledge. Common sense really. Also I didn't realise when you joined any aspect of the military you pay them for your training. I thought the tax payers pay for those who have chosen to go into training, but I could be wrong....In regards with the NHS. Ibiza you can always go to America and see how things work over there. Infact I prefere you would. And I would like to point out infection is everywhere, even in those rich hospitals that promote 'cleanliness' still battle against all types of infections and still lose. Such infections as MRSA is still found in every hospital. Also most infections are brought into the hospital by people and spread even more then people are too lazy to use the hand cleansers or even wash their hands.Be glad that those drs and nurses that you look at with such distain will still treat you to their best of the abilities and the best of care that they can offer because that is their job and one they do day in and day out very sucessfully.




    Most of this is a really interesting point of view and although I do not agree with your points I find them fascinating and I respect you for speaking out and sharing your opinions.

    I withhold comment on most of the final and penultimate paragraphs!

    However, my hubby is American and I have been in American hospitals several times. I have to tell you they are SO much cleaner than British ones. They are pristine, people are seen so much faster and the equipment there is amazing.

    I am really grateful to the NHS ( and also to my grandparents for fighting to put it into place following the Second World War ) but it is not perfect by any means.

    Thank you sweetie for sharing your views x x

    Original Poster

    cdemico;4939298

    Ibiza your opinions were interesting to read even if i diasagree with … Ibiza your opinions were interesting to read even if i diasagree with them.I do support the Monarchy (And i'm a southern irish female catholic) for a number of reasons. One is that I was a history student and found the monarchy line fasinating especially how each sucessor adapts to the climates of society, economic and social changes. I think the UK monarchy is important due to it's history and it's view as a time honoured tradition. Some may think this tradition is 'out of date' but they are figure heads under which the whole UK can unite. Also I have visited other countries with a monarchy- Spain and Holland. Others I would like to visit but I cannot afford to go. Infact April 30th I will be in Amsterdam celebrating 'Queens Day' which I am very looking forward to see as it's a national holiday to promote national unity and togetherness. Which will be a cultural and educational experience to see.People will always be fasinated with the royals as it's a position that can't be achieved or earned unlike a Prime Minister position. Also I find people are to blame when they blow the royalists out of proportion that they are no longer deemed as 'human' and when they make mistakes like people do, it is held against them in a humiliating manor.AIso a report about 10 months ago it was said the cost of the royal family was just 66p. Which I'm pretty sure is cheaper then my wheelie bin. Infact I prefere to pay that measly 66p to the royalist then to help fund Bank Managers pensions who arw granting themselves massive windfalls with the UK tax payers money when they have contributed to this financial crisis that we have found ourselves in.Is it not better to know the devil you know? Lets have a look at history without a royalist or a 'higher' power then the government. Millions of people couldn't be wrong when they voted in Adolf Hitler, could they? Or when the Italians voted Mussolini into a position of power. Now I would like to point out that I do support the monarchy but only in a constituancy power position, not absolute power.In regards with Prince William and his training excersises. When a royalist become head of the military, if only in name would it not be correct if they actually took the time to train and be educated in the military even if it's just to provide a self importance claim. Personally it doesn't hurt to have the figure head of the military to have the military knowledge. Common sense really. Also I didn't realise when you joined any aspect of the military you pay them for your training. I thought the tax payers pay for those who have chosen to go into training, but I could be wrong....In regards with the NHS. Ibiza you can always go to America and see how things work over there. Infact I prefere you would. And I would like to point out infection is everywhere, even in those rich hospitals that promote 'cleanliness' still battle against all types of infections and still lose. Such infections as MRSA is still found in every hospital. Also most infections are brought into the hospital by people and spread even more then people are too lazy to use the hand cleansers or even wash their hands.Be glad that those drs and nurses that you look at with such distain will still treat you to their best of the abilities and the best of care that they can offer because that is their job and one they do day in and day out very sucessfully.



    You are pointing out that you are the exact type of person who would be discriminated against - then say you are in favour of royalty.

    You claim 66p is the cost of royalty?!?!? Presuming per capita that would be over £40 000 000 making them the ultimate benefit scroungers. Think of the lives this would save if spent cleaning the hospitals you cannot see as dirty.

    You list two royals you went to see - yet tripadvisor lists no trips to see royals. Does any other mainstream tourist page arrange queen spotting trips?

    tripadvisor.co.uk/Sea…=Go

    You claim american hospitals are as dirty as ours (eastern european ones are even cleaner).

    You compare royalty against dictators.

    You can only be trolling.

    ClarityofMind;4946475

    Most of this is a really interesting point of view and although I do not … Most of this is a really interesting point of view and although I do not agree with your points I find them fascinating and I respect you for speaking out and sharing your opinions.I withhold comment on most of the final and penultimate paragraphs!However, my hubby is American and I have been in American hospitals several times. I have to tell you they are SO much cleaner than British ones. They are pristine, people are seen so much faster and the equipment there is amazing.I am really grateful to the NHS ( and also to my grandparents for fighting to put it into place following the Second World War ) but it is not perfect by any means. Thank you sweetie for sharing your views x x




    Thank you and sorry if I didn't make myself 100% clear about the American hospital issue. What I was ment to point out was the insurance costs in going through the American health system and I did not mean to imply that american hospitals are dirty. I do apologise, re reading the paragraph it was not elequently put. But to some degree or another there will always be a case of infection. It is part of life.

    ibiza;4947693

    You are pointing out that you are the exact type of person who would be … You are pointing out that you are the exact type of person who would be discriminated against - then say you are in favour of royalty.You claim 66p is the cost of royalty?!?!? Presuming per capita that would be over £40 000 000 making them the ultimate benefit scroungers. Think of the lives this would save if spent cleaning the hospitals you cannot see as dirty.You list two royals you went to see - yet tripadvisor lists no trips to see royals. Does any other mainstream tourist page arrange queen spotting trips?http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Search?q=royalty&sub-search=GoYou claim american hospitals are as dirty as ours (eastern european ones are even cleaner).You compare royalty against dictators.You can only be trolling.



    So tell me why I should find the royalists descriminating? As pointed out the monarchy are very clever at adapting to change around them. Is it because I am Catholic? I mean didn't Henry VIII change the religion just so he could divorce which then led to years of religious warfare? In a basic sense this is true, But I doubt Henry VIII just decided how to change a religion and re-write sermons etc. I don't think the 'protestantism' idea came to him in a dream did it? The idea of Protestantism was already spreading through out europe BEFORE Henry VIII came to the throne and it was by a guy called Martin Luther (ibiza, just to point out, it's not Martin Luther King, this guy is white, german and was born in 1483) which developed into Lutherism. Also around the same time was a guy called John Calvin (who was French) preached Calvinism and both ideas started the Protestant Reformation (Which didnt just happen in England. Funniliy enough..).
    So yes Henry VIII did use this to his own advantage and it shows how they have adapted to their climate change.

    Or is it because i'm female? For hundreds of years the UK has practiced primogeniture succession (Under which all property goes to the eldest child, or often the eldest son) and only very recently have we taken a partible inheritance (under which every child inherits [usually equally]) so it is another time honoured tradition.

    Approx. £1490 per annum will go to the NHS. So whats 66p? ]http//mo…496

    You actually looking at trip advisor for royalist holidays? I'm sorry but please get an education boy. People will only go out of their way to see these things is there is an interest. I know many friends from abroad who visit arn't bothered about see buckingham palace.
    Why not compare dictators and royalist togeather? Are dictators not a form of government such as socialism, communism, liberalism, democracy, capitalist, monarchists, authoritarianism, and the list continues. Again this shows you have a poor grasp of education.

    And I have apologised for not making myself clear with the American hospitals, I was mearly pointing out that infections thrives in most enviroments. Its a fact of life.

    I'm trolling for typing out my own opinion. God forbid someone disagreeing with your opinions. Wow please retreat back into your own little world where no one can have the choice of speech and you can be correct about everything.

    cdemico;4948137

    Thank you and sorry if I didn't make myself 100% clear about the American … Thank you and sorry if I didn't make myself 100% clear about the American hospital issue. What I was ment to point out was the insurance costs in going through the American health system and I did not mean to imply that american hospitals are dirty. I do apologise, re reading the paragraph it was not elequently put. But to some degree or another there will always be a case of infection. It is part of life.



    I know sweetie.. having MRSA after my full term stillbirth was adding insult to injury if you see what I mean. I had seen both the American way of doing things and the British and still chose to have all our children here, including my stillborn as I'm still British and still wish to do things this way. When a woman needs to give birth ..its preferable to do so where she feels safe and near ones family, I always thought back then. So, I blame myself really, should probably have gone with what I knew was better care in the USA, but honestly it costs around $10,000 to give birth in the USA, including a cesarean, three days hospital stay for Mum and longer for baby. So I support your comments about costs in the States x x

    Original Poster

    cdemico;4948149

    So tell me why I should find the royalists descriminating? As pointed out … So tell me why I should find the royalists descriminating? As pointed out the monarchy are very clever at adapting to change around them. Is it because I am Catholic? I mean didn't Henry VIII change the religion just so he could divorce which then led to years of religious warfare? In a basic sense this is true, But I doubt Henry VIII just decided how to change a religion and re-write sermons etc. I don't think the 'protestantism' idea came to him in a dream did it? The idea of Protestantism was already spreading through out europe BEFORE Henry VIII came to the throne and it was by a guy called Martin Luther (ibiza, just to point out, it's not Martin Luther King, this guy is white, german and was born in 1483) which developed into Lutherism. Also around the same time was a guy called John Calvin (who was French) preached Calvinism and both ideas started the Protestant Reformation (Which didnt just happen in England. Funniliy enough..). So yes Henry VIII did use this to his own advantage and it shows how they have adapted to their climate change.Or is it because i'm female? For hundreds of years the UK has practiced primogeniture succession (Under which all property goes to the eldest child, or often the eldest son) and only very recently have we taken a partible inheritance (under which every child inherits [usually equally]) so it is another time honoured tradition.Approx. £1490 per annum will go to the NHS. So whats 66p? ]http://money.uk.msn.com/budget/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4750496You actually looking at trip advisor for royalist holidays? I'm sorry but please get an education boy. People will only go out of their way to see these things is there is an interest. I know many friends from abroad who visit arn't bothered about see buckingham palace.Why not compare dictators and royalist togeather? Are dictators not a form of government such as socialism, communism, liberalism, democracy, capitalist, monarchists, authoritarianism, and the list continues. Again this shows you have a poor grasp of education.And I have apologised for not making myself clear with the American hospitals, I was mearly pointing out that infections thrives in most enviroments. Its a fact of life.I'm trolling for typing out my own opinion. God forbid someone disagreeing with your opinions. Wow please retreat back into your own little world where no one can have the choice of speech and you can be correct about everything.



    Sorry - again you sound like you are trolling.

    There is little relevance with the house of Tudor, or religious agitants from many hundreds of years ago. The issue is the current nepotism, discrimination, and monopolistic competition applied to humans, which obviously is anachronistic and unjust, and practiced by the current house of sax-coburg-gotha/windsor. You were just waffling irrelevancies to obfuscate the instability of your argument.

    If you honestly believe many people visit the UK to see the queen - show me a site used by foreign tourists that has queen spotting holidays.

    Everyone has an entitlement to freedom of speech. However, you are attempting to argue points that are objective rather than subjective, as religious or sexual discrimination can not be seen as fair.

    Furthermore the 66p you keep stating without qualifying - so its left to presume per-capita - would be £40 000 000 per year - so not an inconsiderate amount. How many lives could that have saved if redirected to cleaning hospitals?

    Lastly - regarding your concerns over my education (whist disregarding the unsoundness and irrelevance of your arguments). Excluding those at risk of being typos, would "mearly" and "enviroments" not point to the pot calling the kettle....

    Original Poster

    tinkerbell28;4946612

    Ibiza, I hope you have private medical insurance, so no one from the NHS … Ibiza, I hope you have private medical insurance, so no one from the NHS has to waste their time on you or your family, stay off whatever you smoking, it's making you bitter:thumbsup:Out of thread, you are a waste of space IMO, I am sure you won't be so quick to judge if you ever need treatment, hypocrisy at it's finest.



    I think you will find hypocrisy is failing to practice what you preach - and not highlighting failings or suggesting improvements in a service you cannot opt out of funding, yet is not fit for purpose.

    If you feel the shortcomings listed in the included links are acceptable - then do you think you are/were a suitable person to work in that profession?

    Additionally - you still never mentioned which countries you visited to see their royalty. :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:

    ibiza;4956622

    Sorry - again you sound like you are trolling.There is little relevance … Sorry - again you sound like you are trolling.There is little relevance with the house of Tudor, or religious agitants from many hundreds of years ago. The issue is the current nepotism, discrimination, and monopolistic competition applied to humans, which obviously is anachronistic and unjust, and practiced by the current house of sax-coburg-gotha/windsor. You were just waffling irrelevancies to obfuscate the instability of your argument.If you honestly believe many people visit the UK to see the queen - show me a site used by foreign tourists that has queen spotting holidays.Everyone has an entitlement to freedom of speech. However, you are attempting to argue points that are objective rather than subjective, as religious or sexual discrimination can not be seen as fair.Furthermore the 66p you keep stating without qualifying - so its left to presume per-capita - would be £40 000 000 per year - so not an inconsiderate amount. How many lives could that have saved if redirected to cleaning hospitals?Lastly - regarding your concerns over my education (whist disregarding the unsoundness and irrelevance of your arguments). Excluding those at risk of being typos, would "mearly" and "enviroments" not point to the pot calling the kettle....



    I agree with almost all of this.

    So much to do with the royal family is out of place within a progressive society. Not just the nepotistic ideals and false face it purveys to the wider population.

    As I have noted before... if people really come to the UK to "SEE the Queen" they will mostly be sh... outta luck. She doesn't accept callers to tea just because they wish to see her! If tourism brings people to the UK, it is to see history in its finest rememberances... to see castles, old houses, battlefields, stonehenge, things of noteworthy interest. We will still have these things long after the current system of monarchy has long passed away.

    If it really does cost 66p per person to support the royal family then I still object! I never agreed to do pay this tithe. Give me my money back!
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. word association Game74044563
      2. 3x Now TV Sky Sports Day Passes to Giveaway1817
      3. Does anyone have a Sky voucher code that they wont use?33
      4. Just heard this...2 ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ congrats to all on 392k ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★7767410

      See more discussions