Discussion:
Princess Eugenie's wedding and the cost of security
(too old to reply)
hihgdm
2018-08-21 14:01:11 UTC
Permalink
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/

This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected cost of £2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is impossible to prove.

If the security is that important, there are two options:

1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.

Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Louis Epstein
2018-08-21 15:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/
This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected
cost of ?2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the
British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the
security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason
why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The
only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist
pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is
impossible to prove.
1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.
Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Infuriating.
Those delinquent in their obligation to engage in what they call
"sycophantic slobbering" are the very reason security measures are
necessary.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-08-22 12:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/
This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected
cost of ?2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the
British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the
security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason
why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The
only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist
pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is
impossible to prove.
1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.
Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Infuriating.
Those delinquent in their obligation to engage in what they call
"sycophantic slobbering" are the very reason security measures are
necessary.
--------------
I think you've lost the plot again Comrade. I understand that it's important in an absolute monarchy for the plebs to sycophantically slobber (or slobberingy sycophantate), otherwise they lose their heads, but your reference to security measures escapes me. Are you saying that those plebs who don't engage in this disgusting activity are the real targets of the security forces?

BTW, given that Fake President Spanky Drumpf and his fake bone spurs live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, what is his status there? Is he in charge?
Louis Epstein
2018-08-23 00:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/
This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected
cost of ?2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the
British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the
security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason
why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The
only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist
pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is
impossible to prove.
1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.
Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Infuriating.
Those delinquent in their obligation to engage in what they call
"sycophantic slobbering" are the very reason security measures are
necessary.
--------------
I think you've lost the plot again Comrade.
As ever,the realities elude you as you bury your head in the sand.
Post by hihgdm
I understand that it's important in an absolute monarchy for the plebs
to sycophantically slobber (or slobberingy sycophantate), otherwise they
lose their heads, but your reference to security measures escapes me.
Are you saying that those plebs who don't engage in this disgusting
activity are the real targets of the security forces?
I am saying that there would be no need for security forces if everyone
brushed up on their kowtows and behaved in a sufficiently worshipful way
toward their divinely ordained Sovereign's family.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Donald4564
2018-08-23 02:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
I am saying that there would be no need for security forces if everyone
brushed up on their kowtows and behaved in a sufficiently worshipful way
toward their divinely ordained Sovereign's family.
Respect to be given must be earned. Unfortunately there are some in the huge Royal Family to whom one can really not be expected to have respect for.

Regards
Donald Binks
hihgdm
2018-08-23 10:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/
This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected
cost of ?2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the
British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the
security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason
why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The
only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist
pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is
impossible to prove.
1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.
Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Infuriating.
Those delinquent in their obligation to engage in what they call
"sycophantic slobbering" are the very reason security measures are
necessary.
--------------
I think you've lost the plot again Comrade.
As ever,the realities elude you as you bury your head in the sand.
----------
Too true Comrade. It's how I get through life.
----------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I understand that it's important in an absolute monarchy for the plebs
to sycophantically slobber (or slobberingy sycophantate), otherwise they
lose their heads, but your reference to security measures escapes me.
Are you saying that those plebs who don't engage in this disgusting
activity are the real targets of the security forces?
I am saying that there would be no need for security forces if everyone
brushed up on their kowtows and behaved in a sufficiently worshipful way
toward their divinely ordained Sovereign's family.
-----------
Well, except for the loony-toons with AK47s. I am intrigued however. I understand bowing and curtseying, as self-demeaning as they are, but how exactly does one kowtow? Does it involve contorting one's body into impossible positions from which one probably can't recover?

Lying prostate on the ground, face down (which is probably the form of extreme obeisance that Princess Michael most expects from the hoi-poloi) might be considered a kowtow. One wonders if a woman somewhere, has embarked on a curtsey from which she can't possibly recover, and has fallen flat on her face? There must be an image somewhere.
Louis Epstein
2018-08-23 20:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/
This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected
cost of ?2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the
British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the
security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason
why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The
only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist
pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is
impossible to prove.
1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.
Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Infuriating.
Those delinquent in their obligation to engage in what they call
"sycophantic slobbering" are the very reason security measures are
necessary.
--------------
I think you've lost the plot again Comrade.
As ever,the realities elude you as you bury your head in the sand.
----------
Too true Comrade. It's how I get through life.
----------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I understand that it's important in an absolute monarchy for the plebs
to sycophantically slobber (or slobberingy sycophantate), otherwise they
lose their heads, but your reference to security measures escapes me.
Are you saying that those plebs who don't engage in this disgusting
activity are the real targets of the security forces?
I am saying that there would be no need for security forces if everyone
brushed up on their kowtows and behaved in a sufficiently worshipful way
toward their divinely ordained Sovereign's family.
-----------
Well, except for the loony-toons with AK47s.
They would be harmless if they busied themselves with kowtows
rather than impudently employing their weapons in a manner Royalty
did not direct.
Post by hihgdm
I am intrigued however. I understand bowing and curtseying, as
self-demeaning as they are, but how exactly does one kowtow? Does it
involve contorting one's body into impossible positions from which one
probably can't recover?
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
Post by hihgdm
Lying prostate on the ground, face down (which is probably the form of
extreme obeisance that Princess Michael most expects from the hoi-poloi)
might be considered a kowtow. One wonders if a woman somewhere, has
embarked on a curtsey from which she can't possibly recover, and has
fallen flat on her face? There must be an image somewhere.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Donald4564
2018-08-23 20:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
One would hope that old-age pensioners with a touch of rheumatism and a bit of a gammy leg might be excused from this rather elaborate procedure?

Regards
Donald Binks
Scott55
2018-08-24 09:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
One would hope that old-age pensioners with a touch of rheumatism and a bit of a gammy leg might be excused from this rather elaborate procedure?
Regards
Donald Binks
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
hihgdm
2018-08-24 12:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott55
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant, which seems have a more business-like approach than the Civil List. By any measure the so-called royal family is immensely rich in its own right, either directly on an individual basis and/or through the Queen, but they all apparently get funded through the Sovereign Grant for official duties, including the cost of security. The senior members seem to maintain full taxpayer-funded security. I agree with this for the Queen, as HOS, and her husband, but in view of the considerable wealth of other senior members, there is an argument that they should pay for their own security, and the money thereby saved used for other more pressing purposes in the country.

Princess Eugenie seems to have no significant public role (much to the chagrin of her father) so her wedding is essentially a private affair. The family could decide to keep it private and relatively small, thereby minimising the cost of security (for which they should pay), or they could opt for a large public bash, the security for which would increase accordingly. if they choose the latter option, I can't think of any reason why the British taxpayer should fund the security, or indeed anything associated with the wedding. If there is a good reason, I would like to hear it.
Louis Epstein
2018-08-24 15:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Scott55
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant, which seems have a more business-like approach than the Civil List. By any measure the so-called royal family is immensely rich in its own right, either directly on an individual basis and/or through the Queen, but they all apparently get funded through the Sovereign Grant for official duties, including the cost of security. The senior members seem to maintain full taxpayer-funded security. I agree with this for the Queen, as HOS, and her husband, but in view of the considerable wealth of other senior members, there is an argument that they should pay for their own security, and the money thereby saved used for other more pressing purposes in the country.
Princess Eugenie seems to have no significant public role (much to the
chagrin of her father) so her wedding is essentially a private affair.
The family could decide to keep it private and relatively small, thereby
minimising the cost of security (for which they should pay), or they
could opt for a large public bash, the security for which would increase
accordingly. if they choose the latter option, I can't think of any
reason why the British taxpayer should fund the security, or indeed
anything associated with the wedding. If there is a good reason, I
would like to hear it.
The enormous public benefit associated by the public being graced
with a "public bash" with which to celebrate their sacred Royals
and be reminded of their duty of earnest reverence toward them!!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-08-24 15:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Scott55
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant, which seems have a more business-like approach than the Civil List. By any measure the so-called royal family is immensely rich in its own right, either directly on an individual basis and/or through the Queen, but they all apparently get funded through the Sovereign Grant for official duties, including the cost of security. The senior members seem to maintain full taxpayer-funded security. I agree with this for the Queen, as HOS, and her husband, but in view of the considerable wealth of other senior members, there is an argument that they should pay for their own security, and the money thereby saved used for other more pressing purposes in the country.
Princess Eugenie seems to have no significant public role (much to the
chagrin of her father) so her wedding is essentially a private affair.
The family could decide to keep it private and relatively small, thereby
minimising the cost of security (for which they should pay), or they
could opt for a large public bash, the security for which would increase
accordingly. if they choose the latter option, I can't think of any
reason why the British taxpayer should fund the security, or indeed
anything associated with the wedding. If there is a good reason, I
would like to hear it.
The enormous public benefit associated by the public being graced
with a "public bash" with which to celebrate their sacred Royals
and be reminded of their duty of earnest reverence toward them!!
I said a good reason Comrade, not one you concocted whilst sitting on a toadstool wearing your propeller hat.
Louis Epstein
2018-08-25 05:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Scott55
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant, which seems have a more business-like approach than the Civil List. By any measure the so-called royal family is immensely rich in its own right, either directly on an individual basis and/or through the Queen, but they all apparently get funded through the Sovereign Grant for official duties, including the cost of security. The senior members seem to maintain full taxpayer-funded security. I agree with this for the Queen, as HOS, and her husband, but in view of the considerable wealth of other senior members, there is an argument that they should pay for their own security, and the money thereby saved used for other more pressing purposes in the country.
Princess Eugenie seems to have no significant public role (much to the
chagrin of her father) so her wedding is essentially a private affair.
The family could decide to keep it private and relatively small, thereby
minimising the cost of security (for which they should pay), or they
could opt for a large public bash, the security for which would increase
accordingly. if they choose the latter option, I can't think of any
reason why the British taxpayer should fund the security, or indeed
anything associated with the wedding. If there is a good reason, I
would like to hear it.
The enormous public benefit associated by the public being graced
with a "public bash" with which to celebrate their sacred Royals
and be reminded of their duty of earnest reverence toward them!!
I said a good reason Comrade,
...and I gave you one...
Post by hihgdm
not one you concocted whilst sitting on a toadstool wearing your
propeller hat.
...as you proved by exhibiting the breathtaking depravity of denying it.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
n***@gmail.com
2018-08-25 02:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Scott55
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant, which seems have a more
business-like approach than the Civil List. By any measure the so-called royal family is immensely rich
in its own right, either directly on an individual basis and/or through the Queen, but they all apparently
get funded through the Sovereign Grant for official duties, including the cost of security. The senior
members seem to maintain full taxpayer-funded security. I agree with this for the Queen, as HOS, and
her husband, but in view of the considerable wealth of other senior members, there is an argument that
they should pay for their own security, and the money thereby saved used for other more pressing
purposes in the country.
What wealth?

The Queen has the Sovereign Grant, Prince Charles has the Duchy of Cornwall, there are some houses where they have exclusive use, but just about everything else they "own" is actually state property.

It's not the Queen invested her inheritance from her mother in Apple back when it went public in 1980.
Post by hihgdm
Princess Eugenie seems to have no significant public role (much to the chagrin of her father) so her
wedding is essentially a private affair. The family could decide to keep it private and relatively small,
thereby minimising the cost of security (for which they should pay), or they could opt for a large public
bash, the security for which would increase accordingly. if they choose the latter option, I can't think of
any reason why the British taxpayer should fund the security, or indeed anything associated with the
wedding. If there is a good reason, I would like to hear it.
In theory it should actually be quite cheap to secure since it's in a castle. That's kind of the point of castles. Lock the gates, have some vetted volunteers patrol the walls, all guests come through a checkpoint, etc.

If the security services want to be more elaborate that's on them, not the Princess.

Nick
Louis Epstein
2018-08-25 05:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by Scott55
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant, which seems have a more
business-like approach than the Civil List. By any measure the so-called royal family is immensely rich
in its own right, either directly on an individual basis and/or through the Queen, but they all apparently
get funded through the Sovereign Grant for official duties, including the cost of security. The senior
members seem to maintain full taxpayer-funded security. I agree with this for the Queen, as HOS, and
her husband, but in view of the considerable wealth of other senior members, there is an argument that
they should pay for their own security, and the money thereby saved used for other more pressing
purposes in the country.
What wealth?
The Queen has the Sovereign Grant, Prince Charles has the Duchy of
Cornwall, there are some houses where they have exclusive use, but just
about everything else they "own" is actually state property.
I wouldn't put it that way,since I consider the "state"
to be inalienable property of the Crown.
Post by n***@gmail.com
It's not the Queen invested her inheritance from her mother in Apple
back when it went public in 1980.
Whatever shareholdings the Queen has would I think be administered
by the Privy Purse or Duchy of Lancaster.Balmoral and Sandringham
are outside state administration in any event.
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Princess Eugenie seems to have no significant public role (much to the chagrin of her father) so her
wedding is essentially a private affair. The family could decide to keep it private and relatively small,
thereby minimising the cost of security (for which they should pay), or they could opt for a large public
bash, the security for which would increase accordingly. if they choose the latter option, I can't think of
any reason why the British taxpayer should fund the security, or indeed anything associated with the
wedding. If there is a good reason, I would like to hear it.
In theory it should actually be quite cheap to secure since it's in a
castle. That's kind of the point of castles. Lock the gates, have some
vetted volunteers patrol the walls, all guests come through a
checkpoint, etc.
If the security services want to be more elaborate that's on them, not the Princess.
I think the carriage procession in Windsor is the flashpoint here.
That's what would attract tourists and threats and police.
Post by n***@gmail.com
Nick
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein
2018-08-24 15:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott55
Post by Donald4564
Post by Louis Epstein
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
One would hope that old-age pensioners with a touch of rheumatism and a bit of a gammy leg might be excused from this rather elaborate procedure?
Regards
Donald Binks
How about a compromise re: the original complaint, which I see as "who should pay for it?"
If the principal people involved are on the Civil List, then the cost
should be borne by the Public. If not, then the Duke of York is almost
certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost.
The Civil List was abolished years ago...

Are other people for whom similar security needs are seen
obliged to pay for policing?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-08-24 13:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/
This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected
cost of ?2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the
British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the
security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason
why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The
only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist
pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is
impossible to prove.
1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.
Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Infuriating.
Those delinquent in their obligation to engage in what they call
"sycophantic slobbering" are the very reason security measures are
necessary.
--------------
I think you've lost the plot again Comrade.
As ever,the realities elude you as you bury your head in the sand.
----------
Too true Comrade. It's how I get through life.
----------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I understand that it's important in an absolute monarchy for the plebs
to sycophantically slobber (or slobberingy sycophantate), otherwise they
lose their heads, but your reference to security measures escapes me.
Are you saying that those plebs who don't engage in this disgusting
activity are the real targets of the security forces?
I am saying that there would be no need for security forces if everyone
brushed up on their kowtows and behaved in a sufficiently worshipful way
toward their divinely ordained Sovereign's family.
-----------
Well, except for the loony-toons with AK47s.
They would be harmless if they busied themselves with kowtows
rather than impudently employing their weapons in a manner Royalty
did not direct.
Post by hihgdm
I am intrigued however. I understand bowing and curtseying, as
self-demeaning as they are, but how exactly does one kowtow? Does it
involve contorting one's body into impossible positions from which one
probably can't recover?
My understanding is that one gets down on one's hands and knees,
knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,crawls forward
3 steps,and knocks one's forehead to the ground three times,
then awaits permission to speak or direction to withdraw (reversing
the ritual).
---------
Is that all there is to it? Cool. I hesitate to ask Comrade, but do you...um...practice this activity, in private of course, in preparation for meeting one or more of the illustrious people concerned? Better still, have you had the opportunity to put it into practice for real? Are you permitted, officially speaking, to tie tiny cushions to your knees to prevent the inevitable chafing? One is fascinated.
---------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Lying prostate on the ground, face down (which is probably the form of
extreme obeisance that Princess Michael most expects from the hoi-poloi)
might be considered a kowtow. One wonders if a woman somewhere, has
embarked on a curtsey from which she can't possibly recover, and has
fallen flat on her face? There must be an image somewhere.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Donald4564
2018-08-21 21:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/princess-eugenie-wedding-prince-andrew/
This article, from an avowed republican, laments that the projected cost of £2m for security for the wedding is to be paid by us, the British taxpayer. I don't accept that it's OK for us to pay for the security, and I'm willing to bet that no-one can offer a sensible reason why it should happen (that doesn't involve sycophantic slobbering.) The only response I might expect is that the return in terms of tourist pounds is greater, but that is a nebulous argument at best because it is impossible to prove.
1. Prince Andrew and/or the Queen should pay for it
2. The wedding should be downsized specifically to reduce the cost of security, but the abovementioned should still pick up the cost of security.
Two million pounds would go some way to help alleviate the problem of child poverty in the UK.
Police protection is available to all when required. I daresay it costs about the same to protect some imported pop star "celebrity" who feels somewhat endangered. Security is part and parcel of this modern world we live in - so get used to it.

Regards
Donald Binks
Loading...