The Truth About IPP Sentences

Queen’s Jubilee costs £3 billion while poorest families starve

God Save the Queen - but she should pay the bill herself...

God Save the Queen - but she should pay the bill herself...

The cost of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee to Britain and its taxpayers is estimated by the government to be as much as £3 billion. At the same time, many of the unemployed, disadvantaged and poor do not have enough to pay for basic necessities, including food, energy and water.

The huge cost to the country of staging the Queen’s celebrations could rise even more when the effect of the extra bank holiday on businesses is taken into account. Meanwhile, the government wants to cut benefits to the very needy by more than £1 billion.

The figures from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport highlight what many people see as the hypocrisy of the middle classes and wealthy celebrating the Monarchy whilst those who are less fortunate starve.

With less than 40% of the nation expected to celebrate the Jubilee whilst 60% will not – many having chosen to go abroad instead and celebrate the comparative weakness of the Euro to the Pound – TheOpinionSite.org is not alone in wondering why so much public money is being wasted on something that is both anachronistic and irrelevant in a modern world.

Whilst the Jubilee may cause a very temporary ‘feel good factor’ among Tory MPs, the wider establishment such as the police and with those who still believe the Monarchy is necessary, the unnecessary spending of so much of our money will do little to help anyone.

It also has to be said that neither the Queen herself nor any members of her family have the slightest idea of what it is like to live on a sink estate or to be in a position where one has to choose between eating and heating during the winter months because there is insufficient money to go around.

No amount of expensive pageantry or flag waving is going to help the homeless and with local councils across the country spending an average of £500,000 on the celebrations, it is right to ask whether that money could and should have been spent on something more worthwhile.

Whilst the £12 million price tag of the River Pageant has largely been met by private sponsorship and donations, the costs of policing all the other events, the bill for security and the endless organisational costs have had to be taken from taxpayers, many of whom do not even realise that they are actually paying for it.

One of the largest security operations ever staged in London protected the 7 mile river route and it has been reported that both MI6 and MI5 have cancelled all leave and reassigned staff in order to ensure the Royal Family, participants and the public enjoy the continuing celebrations.

The government is however not the only institution keeping quiet about the costs to the public purse. Other organisations are also reluctant to come clean over how much taxpayer’s money they are spending.

The BBC for example, when approached by TheOpinionSite.org, declined to comment on how much the royal coverage was costing the public in addition to money generated by the already expensive licence fee.

The Metropolitan Police and other forces across the country have also declined to reveal how much public money they are spending on policing over the course of the celebrations for Her Majesty and her endless train of followers.

The greatest hypocrisy of all however is that of the government and its wealthy friends enjoying themselves with their equally wealthy backers whilst at the same time getting ready to slap a 3p a litre increase on the price of fuel in August.

The increase in petrol and diesel prices will once again increase the cost of food and everything else, thus making life even more difficult for those who already have insufficient money to purchase even basic essentials like food, electricity and water.

The Queen and her family, together with the Prime Minister and his millionaire Cabinet will of course remain entirely unaffected by any increases.

Graham Smith, CEO of Republic joined TheOpinionSite.org in criticising the excessive amounts of public money that were being spent on Jubilee celebrations.

He said: “Councils up and down the country are wasting public money on these celebrations whilst simultaneously cutting jobs which is hard to justify. All of this pageantry will come at a huge cost to the public for no return and it will have a negative impact on the economy.”

Mr Smith also revealed that police are allowing the organisation to stage a protest, “Hundreds, maybe even thousands of our supporters will be going down to the banks by the Tower of London to protest against the pageant.”

TheOpinionSite.org is sad to report another waste of public money that could be put to better use – £7 million pounds of it:

It has been confirmed that Jubilee medals are being awarded to serving members of key front line services. This description includes the armed forces, the police, the Prison Service (which was left out last time and should have been left out again as it is not truly a ‘front line’ service), ambulance service and fire and rescue services) who have completed five years’ service on the anniversary of the Queen’s accession on 6 February 2012.

Almost all of these bodies come under the auspices of ‘Her Majesty’ and it is widely felt that the sole reason these meaningless decorations are being produced is to maintain the public presence of the Monarchy. In other, non-royal countries, it is the State that commissions most of the services listed above.

Between 400,000 and 450,000 medals will be produced, at a total cost to the taxpayer (you and me that is) of between £7 million and £8 million.

Perhaps the Queen should also include Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs who extort her government’s Income Tax from the rest of us and give all of its personel a medal too? After all, the medals are not costing her a single penny.

How all this spending is supposed to help the rest of us – especially the poorest in society – to overcome the ongoing financial downturn is unclear but it will certainly help David Cameron and his Tory/Royalist cronies to maintain their make-believe grip on Britain’s now very faded ‘glorious’ past.

Unfortunately, such an enormous waste of money will also increase the chances that the Royalist-led Tory party will take us all down with them as they strive so hard to keep an unwilling population subserviant to an inconsequential, pseudo authority like the Monarchy which disguises Britain’s ever evolving police state.

TheOpinionSite.org readily accepts that its view will not find favour with and may even upset some people. Nevertheless, our view does perhaps reflect the opinion of the 60% of British citizens that have not participated in the Jubilee celebrations, many of whom could not have afforded to do so even if they had actually wanted to.

The almost pathalogical obsession with the Monarchy displayed by successive governments has held the UK back for far too long.

Britain’s unhealthy habit of dwelling on past glories has blinded those in power (and many ordinary people) to the fact that Britain is now largely insignificant in the world, its outdated ideals and policies failing to recognise the evolution of modern society and consequently enslaving the UK into a way of life that most other countries regard as either ‘quaint’ or – if they are being honest – primitive.

A small, broken and irrelevant island stuck somewhere off the coast of Northern Europe is no longer going to change the world. Britain is even regarded by America as only either being useful or simply ‘getting in the way’. The ‘special relationship’ is no longer any more ‘special’ than that shared by the US with France, Germany or any other European country for that matter.

The Monarchy does nothing to help Britain in practical terms and costs far too much to maintain at a time when many subjects of this royal dinosaur cannot even afford to eat.

Eventually, it comes down to this:

It is increasingly difficult to see why, with 60% of the population not interested in such an outdated mechanism, the taxpayer has to pay for it. If the Queen wants to go on living a life of luxury whilst her poorest subjects starve and freeze, let her pay for it herself. If she wants to celebrate, she can pay for that too.

After all, she and her family are still some of the very wealthiest people in Britain today.

(Have your say – whatever it is – in our Forum by clicking HERE)

Tags: , , , ,

63 Responses to Queen’s Jubilee costs £3 billion while poorest families starve

  1. Rob
    June 26, 2015 at 12:43 am

    The real benefits Britain ….it’s a disgrace, diamond jubilee cost £3 billion that’s £50 from every man woman and child in the UK and yet there’s food banks in all our cities? This year alone £5million just on travel expenses? It makes my stomach churn……do away with them….another angry voice…..

    • Corrupt UK
      June 26, 2015 at 12:48 am

      well said Rob…all the money in the world can’t make buy you a ticket on judgement day and judgement day will come to us all?

  2. gerald eatock
    March 31, 2014 at 2:10 am

    Her majesty creates a lot of tourism for this country .she does an amazing job and is a remarkable lady .I cant believe people talk this way about our sovereign .this country would be nothing with out her.if your unemployed blame the government and the hordes of foreign workers allowed by these Westminster twerps !

    • pete cresswell
      May 24, 2014 at 11:54 am

      So Prince Charles is said to have compared Putin to Hitler over the Ukraine saga. No mention of what his Government did in Iraq with their WMD lies and murder of a million Iraqis. Or Britain’s “Glorious” Empire of stealing everything from anybody not able to defend themselves and enslaving them . Let alone murdering it’s own citizens with impunity like Diana and David Kelly. Even spraying its own citizens with viruses for 30 years and stealing their money etc’ . I could go on all day. And Charles we are not even allowed a referendum of dumping your lot. Now Charles .That is what I call fascism.

      • Yvonne Jones
        September 14, 2015 at 9:47 pm

        Very true and well put!

    • Greig Dighton
      March 13, 2017 at 9:34 am

      HAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Deluded.

  3. daniel
    January 19, 2013 at 9:58 pm

    anarchy will soon establish across the planet, the tick will be removed
    very soon

  4. alan smith
    December 17, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    its time the monarchy was abolished along with all the greedy rich hangers on and pompous titles and a true democracy would be a republic.

  5. Lester
    November 22, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    It is a myth that the Monarch is a check on the PM. It is a myth that the monarch keeps politicians in check. It is a myth that the monarch is politically neutral and impartial. It is a myth that the monarch has no power. She and her first son, as well as wielding undue influence virtue of who they are. Also wield personal vetos over legislation. The heir to the throne is interfering in public policy decision making and if the extent of his meddling is ever revealed the monarchy could be in danger, so said the attorney general.
    Excellent article, I agree with every word.

    • adam
      November 23, 2012 at 1:09 am

      Wrong on many account. The Queen has limted power and her veto like her sons is over the duchys. Learn what these are and it explains is a lot.

      go get educated if you argee with everyword

  6. Justin Casey
    June 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    I think there`s is nothing worse than someone being a “Patron” of a charity in name only. Surely the millions the Queen recieves from the civil list each year would allow her to at least make a single donation??? I`ve never heard of an instance where any of these over indulged inbreds have actually ever put thier hands in thier pockets and led by example… I remember watching the Queen and her spiteful vindictive family show not a shred of emotion at Dianas` funeral, then a few months later this same woman actually cried when she had that poxy Royal Yacht taken from her!!!! For me, that showed true contempt for any sense of “charity”… Think about it…. This family all knew about Camilla and also the emotional damge they themselves allowed to happen to the mother of thier own sons` children…. They complained about the public funeral and the use of the Royal Standard in the procession…. These people are supposedly meant to represent “values” pfft!!! Why do they need so many Palaces? Why when Windsor had a fire did they attempt to make US the taxpayers pay for the repairs? Why was it not even insured? Answer… They assumed that it was thier right to not ask, but demand we pay for it all as the Palaces apparently “belong” to us!!! Yet, we cannot nip down there to enjoy its` luxuries… Unless we again pay to enter these places… and even then we can`t just walk about… we can only see certain parts…. Becouse they are off limits to us even though we own them they are not ours to actually enjoy or appreciate… Imagine if you will how many unseen works of art hang in the rooms we don`t see, imagine how much some of the paintings are worth… They have priceless works of art hanging on toilet walls… Why? When i take a sh*t I read a paper or upate my knowledge on Non-Ionic Surfacants (Not less than 15% in case you are wondering)… There is nothing more disgusting or annoying than some overpaid bag of vile puss filled old bag telling us to support charities and be more caring to others when they themselves do not act this way themselves… It smacks of hypocrisy!!! All of them should be ashamed but they have no concept of the meaning of shame.. Never mind dignity!!! Anyone can do thier “Jobs”…. and for less money as well!!

    • josh o'neal
      June 7, 2012 at 7:51 pm

      So true,Iam an American living over here england was kind enough to give me a home and I’ve worked and paid tax for the seven years plus living in this country I think it is a complete sick and twisted joke that the royals are living high on the hog and I see so many families struggle to make ends meet sometimes my own family with wife and my two kids I promise you we are not eating steak everynight And dipshit charles could he have any less of a fuc*&^% clue???? God save the queen my ass,Iam praying he’ll save us first Good luck to you mate ,well said!!!!

  7. Brian Pocklington
    June 5, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Very interesting article. However not a view shared by the vast majority of The United Kingdom including myself.

    God forbid we should ever end up with a Republic !

    • helenahr
      June 5, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      Have you gone out and polled the “vast majority of The United Kingdom”? Wow, I am impressed. Obtaining the views of 62 million people must have been incredibly time consuming.

      • Wonderwoman
        June 6, 2012 at 10:45 am

        I don’t think you need to poll them, the vast majority of people seemed to be out partying!!

        • BlueArmy
          June 6, 2012 at 1:15 pm

          ‘the vast majority seemed to be out partying’ if you mean going to the pub on a bank holiday then yes…but partying because of the Queen. I don’t think so!!

        • localman
          June 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm

          I attended my local Jubilee party but only to meet my neighbors not to support the monarchy.Just because you see lots of people out doesn’t mean they are all there for the same reason does it? Pole that!

          • adam
            November 23, 2012 at 1:03 am

            ok , national polls show 70+ support for the monarchy year in year out most of the time while republicanism is 16-20% so yes fast marjoity of the UK support monarchy. Plus look how many people lined the streets compared to the republcian protest, and watch it on tv.

  8. Ms Justice
    June 5, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Funny bunch parading round in titles. Especially Prince Philip who fantasises that he is a Greek Prince. Gob Bless him as I haer he is in hospital but he does not speak a word of Greek! We should send their upkeep and party costs to Angela Merkel as lets face it they are German…..

  9. lumpycustard
    June 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    My father who fought in the 2nd World War and lost as leg has had to pay £90,000 death duty tax when he died at the age of 88 years.Note the Royals pay nothing!

    • adam
      November 23, 2012 at 1:04 am

      the Royals do pay inheritance tax and income tax and council tax and VAT etc they pay more then your dad did mate.

      • John
        April 16, 2013 at 3:58 am

        The royals do not pay inheritance tax.

  10. Terry Armitatge
    June 5, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    Apart from the disgraceful expense of this charade, i cannot understand why the News channels ran nothing else other than the jubilee tosh, even thought there was continuous coverage on all channels. Again we pay for the BBC and expect balanced coverage. There must be millions of people who are outraged by this expense, but nothing is reported in the media. What Democracy,beware we have a British spring.

    • Guy:Jones
      June 6, 2012 at 9:56 am

      I did find it heartening though that so few actually turned up to wave their flags (all made in China or Korea)at the biggest gang of scroungers on the planet. At times the streets were empty and overhead footage showed people running from one spot to another. I would have thought that if the Queen and her inbred progeny were so popular then there would have been no room to swing a cat. Instead I saw folks having enough room to run the 100m sprint. Hopefully next time there will be so few people who give a toss that they decide to spend the money on something that everyone wants, like another war or a British moon landing. That would be awesome!!

  11. Ruhul Anam
    June 5, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    I myself was there at the Jubilee night 2002.
    Since then i’ve spent most of the time in UKBA’s unlawful detention.
    While my family is left without me, my kids ended up in social services care
    And the diamond jubilee was right by the my flat(Which is also taken from me.)
    So, there is nothing this diamond jubilee have for me?

    • helenahr
      June 5, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      What is your point? No one reading this will have any idea of why you are in a UK Border Authority detention centre, why your children ended up in the care of Social Services or who owned the flat that you say was taken away from you. The jubilees of 2002 and 2012 won’t have done much for anyone in Britain in terms of social welfare. That was never the intention. The purpose of the first event was to enhance feelings of patriotism, unification and faith in the monarchy among the British people. In 2012, the year of the diamond jubilee, the event had to reflect the fact that the population of Britain has become multicultural and multi-ethnic. The Queen must have been delighted, and have derived great personal satisfaction, from seeing that the changing face of the British people has been so well celebrated in the events that have marked the occasion. She has since the beginning of her reign, been a great supporter of the people of the Empire and the Commonwealth. The role of the common people is to wave flags, do lots of cheering and be overawed by the display of wealth, pomp and grandeur. Asking questions or expecting anything in return is considered entirely unacceptable.

      • Ruhul Anam
        June 6, 2012 at 9:45 am

        My point is Injustice is been done on me and my family where royal is the so call head state also head of common wealth.
        My flat was repossessed by peabody trust (Charity housing association)in my absent, and taken all my belonging.

        Upper tribunal were adjourned now it is listed for please see detail on this link http://nottingham.indymedia.org/articles/2295

      • Haydn Evans
        June 6, 2012 at 1:39 pm

        ye but the empire is dead and all its glory. We shouldnt waste billions of pounds on a pompous monarch who has done nothing in 60 years but claim state benefits while allowing people who actually work for our country to go hungry. Why not use 3 billion to pay off the deficit, instead of taking money from the poor and needy. To be fair its disgraceful. The monarchy is a disgrace and stain on britain and goes against our supposedly democratic society. Id rather be seen as an equal to the queen, not a commoner.In my eyes im actually better than her because i have worked for this country. I just dont see why people want to waste their own hard earned money o people dont care about them, and who think they are lower than them. Its an embarrassment that people are living in the past still after hundreds of years. Other countries are only in awe of us because where so backwards, where other countries have moved on and become successful (eg france, USA etc) we have become one of the poorest, scrattiest countries in europe, neglected by pompous royalist conservatives and the monarchy itself. Do people think that if they support the monarchy they will get a reward at the end? Well sorry folks, you wont. Theyll just take your money for the rest of your life, without giving anything to you, not even respect, because they refer to you as a ‘commoner’ (derogatory term meaning your lower in standing than them and that your not their equal. I could say more but ill leave it there. God, forget about the queen, save britain, it needs you more, the queen has enough to pay for herself. Down with the monarchy!

  12. David Holloway
    June 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Having a politically neutral head of state serves the important function of the most powerful politician (the prime minister) having a cheque on his powers at all times. A tyrant would have to murder the entire royal family before they could dominate and in fact if you study nations that have abolished or executed their royals it was spear headed by either communists or fascists wanting more power. A republican President would be a politician and therefore, would not be neutral.
    With regards to finance, there is a lot of misinformation and at times down right lies about how much the monarchy costs, the truth is that the Queen only receives enough money from the government to pay for head of state expenditures: staff pay, upkeep of the official head of state residence, travel costs, the costs of entertaining foreign ambassadors, etc. this is money that an elected head of state would need as well. She doesn’t use money from tax payers for her own benefit. Using the Queen as head of state costs a substantial lot less than what Germany and France spend on their heads of state. The truth is that the monarchy is very cost effective. Republican presidents nearly always cost more.
    With regards to public image, that’s obvious. Monarchies are often the greatest symbol of a nations heritage and culture through-out the world, an elected head of state would never be able to garner that much attention or respect.
    So having a monarchy provides a cost effective way to keep a politically neutral head of state, while maintaining our heritage, and attracting attention to the nation. They also do a massive amount of charity work.
    So stop whinging and get your bunting out.

    • Raymond Peytors - theopinionsite.org
      June 5, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      Thank you for your view but I regret there will be no bunting visible here. As for attracting attention to the nation, be careful what you wish for, especially given the degree of xenophobia that is promoted by the British, perhaps as a result of loosing its world status. – Editor

    • William Garland
      June 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm

      It is a total misnomer to beleive that the British Monarchy is politically neutral. Our present Queen may keep her politics close to her chest, but I think one can reasonably predict, which Political Party she prefers in power. And as for her predecessors, they did not bother to hide publically their political preferences. George the V1, openly despaired at the election of Clement Attlee, and his wife, our present Queen’s mother, never bothered to hide her admiration for Margaret Thatcher confiding once to that obnoxcious former Politician come Journalist, the late Woodraw Wyatt, her fear and loathing of a possible Kinnock led Government. George the V, was quite public in his loathing of the election of Ramsey Macdonald and the first ever Labour Government in this country. In a nutshell, they are not politically neutral at all. They will just about tolerate a non Tory government, but that is all, the reason why, is simple, they are an integral part of the Tory Establishment of this country.

      • William Garland
        June 5, 2012 at 7:39 pm

        Woodrow Wyatt, my apologies, a slip of the keyboard.

      • Wonderwoman
        June 6, 2012 at 10:44 am

        Is the Queen allowed to vote? If she isn’t it must be really frustrating to not be able to have a say in who runs the country!!

    • helenahr
      June 5, 2012 at 9:28 pm

      Ah, men do so love women who conform the masculine ideals of womanhood: petite, correct, not given to emotional displays or gossip and possessing a strong sense of duty….

      As an English woman whose connections to the land pre-date those of the House of Windsor by hundreds of years, I have felt a sense of disgust at the sycophantic coverage of this jubilee and the puffed up men who fawned around one very comfortable, privileged, elderly lady who has no concept of the lives lived by the British people who fund her and her family. The emphasis given to multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism in the jubilee events left me wondering who the celebrations were aimed at, until I recalled that Elizabeth II’s 1947 pledge was to serve the Empire, not the United Kingdom. Looking back over the past 60 years and at how England is now, I cannot think of a single positive thing that she or the rest of the Royal bunch have done for the country except dole out gongs, act as patrons of charities, and perpetuate the obscene idea that the personal enjoyment of vast, inherited wealth is acceptable in Britain in 2012.

      The royal experience of other cultures is all deferential foreigners waving flags in the sunshine, big banquets and new paint and carpets in embassies and palaces. Have you ever seen the Queen arriving impromptu at an Indian restaurant in Bradford? Do Eugene and Beatrice trip down the London streets in their Laboutins past Somalians dangerously high on Khat? Do Charles and Camilla turn up for an impromptu evening stroll with the pit bulls and their owners on Deptford estates? Do the royals have any inkling of what life is like for the rest of their humble subjects? Of course they don’t. What is the point of chauffeurs and body guards except to keep one well clear of the ugliness of 21st century life?

      London, the city of my birth, is now an entirely foreign place that has nothing to do with England or the British people. Most of it is now owned by the Qatari royal family and billionaire Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Indians and Italians. They don’t give a toss about England or its traditions, culture and heritage. The rest of London’s population is comprised of people with Nigerian, Somalian, Chinese,Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani origins. Ditto the above. In my lifetime I have witnessed the destruction of some of England’s most beautiful landscapes and the vast increase in the population that has changed the face of Britain forever. I have, personally, seen old people left lying in soiled hospital beds, without food or water, and terrifying gangs smashing shopfronts to steal what was someone else’s way of making a living.

      The Queen is one of the richest women in the world. A large part of her revenue comes from things that should belong to the country, not the Monarchy. Take, for example, the coastal waters around the British Isles that Royalty has claimed for it’s own: the Crown Estates make £15.5 million per annum alone from marine minerals and £11.5 million for allowing cables and pipelines to be laid in “their” marine waters. The Royal family are also rather fond of renting out “their” land for wind farms as long as these do not affect their own homes, only the homes and lives of the unimportant plebs. Also, unlike the rest of us poor sloggers, the Royals are exempt from inheritance tax. How is that fair to the rest of the British working ants?

      As to the “massive amount of charity work” that we are told the Royals do, so what? Thousands of people do charity work at the same time as having to provide for themselves and their families. There is a huge gulf between being a mere figurehead of a charity and those who commit their time and energy to serving in charity shops, soup kitchens and hospitals, those who actually get out there with the homeless, the poor and the suffering. I know where my admiration lies, and it is not with the pampered, protected wealthy who use philanthropy as both smokescreen and justification for their wealth. I can think of several billionaires living in London who are keen on that old ruse.

      If the royal family are as valuable as we are told, in terms of charity work and tourism, one is very much left wondering why the country is in such a poor economic state. The jubilee will have cost taxpayers millions of pounds in security alone. The worker ants will, of course, never be told the figures. The Olympics are costing the worker ants £11 billion or more. I wonder who will be able to travel effortlessly, in chauffeur driven cars, down the roads reserved for VIPS, to the best view, front row seats? The Royals, very rich foreigners, Lord Coe and cronies, senior executives of MacDonalds and Coca Cola are the first to spring to mind. Will any one of them give a lift and a decent seat to some less fortunate worker ant? Like hell.

      Bring the bunting in and get back to work. The party was over long ago.

      • Justin Casey
        June 6, 2012 at 12:48 pm

        I think there`s is nothing worse than someone being a “Patron” of a charity in name only. Surely the millions the Queen recieves from the civil list each year would allow her to at least make a single donation??? I`ve never heard of an instance where any of these over indulged inbreds have actually ever put thier hands in thier pockets and led by example… I remember watching the Queen and her spiteful vindictive family show not a shred of emotion at Dianas` funeral, then a few months later this same woman actually cried when she had that poxy Royal Yacht taken from her!!!! For me, that showed true contempt for any sense of “charity”… Think about it…. This family all knew about Camilla and also the emotional damge they themselves allowed to happen to the mother of thier own sons` children…. They complained about the public funeral and the use of the Royal Standard in the procession…. These people are supposedly meant to represent “values” pfft!!! Why do they need so many Palaces? Why when Windsor had a fire did they attempt to make US the taxpayers pay for the repairs? Why was it not even insured? Answer… They assumed that it was thier right to not ask, but demand we pay for it all as the Palaces apparently “belong” to us!!! Yet, we cannot nip down there to enjoy its` luxuries… Unless we again pay to enter these places… and even then we can`t just walk about… we can only see certain parts…. Becouse they are off limits to us even though we own them they are not ours to actually enjoy or appreciate… Imagine if you will how many unseen works of art hang in the rooms we don`t see, imagine how much some of the paintings are worth… They have priceless works of art hanging on toilet walls… Why? When i take a sh*t I read a paper or upate my knowledge on Non-Ionic Surfacants (Not less than 15% in case you are wondering)… There is nothing more disgusting or annoying than some overpaid bag of vile puss filled old bag telling us to support charities and be more caring to others when they themselves do not act this way themselves… It smacks of hypocrisy!!! All of them should be ashamed but they have no concept of the meaning of shame.. Never mind dignity!!! Anyone can do thier “Jobs”…. and for less money as well!!

  13. Max
    June 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    The arguments regarding the cost of the Jubilee certainly have merit, but every other argument is flawed. To the comments above claiming the royal familyy should pay for itself, it does pay for itself. From the rent of it’s holdings it takes a fixed stipend for expenses of around £8 million a year, with a reserve of around £40 million. The rest, some £200+ million a year, is paid to parliament. The loss of the royal household would increase taxes, not decrease it. this also ignores the billions generated by the tourism industry

    • Max
      June 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm

      So I find the argument that the monarchy does nothing in practical terms for Britain to be somewhat weak.

      • Raymond Peytors - theopinionsite.org
        June 5, 2012 at 3:50 pm

        Thank you for your valuable comment. Where do your figures come from and do you by any chance work for the government or royal household? – Editor

  14. Shahid Syed
    June 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    I agree entirely with your view about the recent celebrations. I regard the whole institution of British monarchy a symbol of tyranny, oppression and terror. British colonialism was planned and executed under the banner of Royal. In the 21st century I cannot accept this kind of undemocratic and hypocritical stance to celebrate such a bizarre head of state notion.

  15. William Garland
    June 5, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    I displayed a small French flag on my garage, during the Jubilee celebrations, just to irritate my neighbours, with their Union Jacks. I was worried, I might get a call from the Police, fortunately, I did not! Though, I was right, to be concerned, because, you can bet, at any given time, the Security Services in this Country have a Database, full of the names of people who have Republican sympathies, with of course all that goes with that, suddenly finding out, that they cannot get a particular job that they have applied for, unable to become a Magistrate, or unable to join other organisations.

    And, of course, you are right to point out in your leading article, the nauseating hypocricy of the billions spent on all this flummary, when at the same time, we are told, we all have to tighten our belts, and the Government of the day is busy slashing budgets, on all manner of things. I have also read that, Local Councils are willingly throwing Council Tax payers money on Jubilee Celebrations, at the same time as slashing spending on essential services.

    One final rejoinder, from an experience, I myself, had recently. The other day, I was in agony, from an abcess that had developed on one of my teeth. I was not registerd with a Dentist, but had to get some emergency treatment, I found one nearby, fortunately and she thus removed the tooth, but at the cost of nearly a £100. I, could just about afford it, but imagine some poor pensioner or unemployed person who could’nt afford it! They would have just had to put up with the pain indefinitely. Yet, at the same time we spend, goodness knows how many millions on this ridiculous Jubilee. Perhaps, some of this money, could be spent on some free of charge Dental services, amongst many other things, it could be better spent on.

    • Wonderwoman
      June 6, 2012 at 10:37 am

      You could have gone to your local A&E, they would have treated you for free.

      • steve
        June 22, 2012 at 1:42 am

        Free? About 12% of the taxpayer funds is spent on the NHS. £120bn is hardly ‘free’, even over the last 5 years of many hundreds of billions being borrowed and spent supporting the public and financial sectors.

  16. Jenny
    June 5, 2012 at 11:47 am

    I don’t remember voting to have my money spent this way. Nor do I remember Cameron or anyone else asking my opinion before spending my cash.

    Get rid of the lot of them; There are enough spongers in this country already. Are we supposed to celebrate them as well?

    • alana
      June 5, 2012 at 5:07 pm

      Yes I agree, and the story of Lazarus and the rich man also springs to mind but as we are now in the 21st century now, I will bring the Lazarus parable up to date, so personaly, I wouldn’t pi.. on her if she was on fire, please don’t take that to heart YOUR ROYAL HIGHNESS, it just that I get a little irritable sometimes when iv had nothing to eat, I’m sure you understand, (DONT YOU).

      • Joe
        November 23, 2012 at 1:41 am

        Try selling your PC if you’re THAT hard up – which I rather doubt.

  17. testman
    June 5, 2012 at 11:37 am

    What a terrible waste of money the royal family is. Personally, I prefer the French solution…

    • adam
      November 23, 2012 at 1:07 am

      lol they brought there monarchy back afterwards learn history mate

      • Jeremy
        November 24, 2012 at 5:42 am

        So tell me Adam, who is the current head of state of France? It’s been a republic for the past 142 years. Take your own advice and learn history.

  18. Miwanda
    June 5, 2012 at 10:37 am

    It is a times like this that I pray for Jesus’ quick return, before God we are all equal.

    Spending all that money on celebrations? What are we celebrating if I may ask? She has been there and she has enjoyed all these years!! The royals have had it simple and very easy, it is high time they start taking care of themselves. All those castles should be put on on rest, they are people with enough cash to rent them. Time has come for the Queen to think twice about her roles and compare with what the people are saying. I wonder if the people in the Netherlands are paying so much for the royal family or if Spain does the same.

  19. Michaela
    June 5, 2012 at 9:11 am

    An excellent analysis, Raymond, and I agree with all you say except for one point.

    You refer to ‘British citizens’. As Britain is not a democracy but a ‘constitutional monarchy’ we’re not citizens (despite all the claptrap spoken about citizenship ceremonies and ‘citizenship’ in the national curriculum), but SUBJECTS. Officially, we are subjects of “Her Majesty”, which legally means we are all ultimately subjected to the will of the monarch (hence those archaic terms, “detained at the Queen’s pleasure”, “royal pardon”, etc.) This is why oaths of allegiance to the monarch are sworn by MPs (except now in the Six Counties of N. Ireland), judges, police, magistrates, Scouts & Guides, etc. The list is long. Legally too, the Queen is is the “fount of honour and justice”, the embodiment of our law, and God’s temporal representive in her realms. …yet we’re now in the 21st century!

    As long as we are subjects of unelected, hereditary monarch we can never call ourselves a democracy.

    • Raymond Peytors - theopinionsite.org
      June 5, 2012 at 11:40 am

      …which is why they like to keep the monarchy going. They don’t want us to be a democracy. – Editor

      • Steve Knight
        June 5, 2012 at 8:17 pm

        Like anyone would ever actually get a say in a Republic, either…

        If it’s not a Monarch, it’s the Unions.
        If it’s not the Unions, it’s the banks.
        If it’s not the banks, yada yada yada, and so on, and so forth….

        You want a republic, sod off to America, and try that one. They’ll laugh at you as much as I am.

        • Jeremy
          November 24, 2012 at 5:48 am

          Why are you fawning sycophantic royal arse kissers so quick to throw America into the ring? Why don’t you look at how they do things in Ireland or Switzerland, where the people get to have a referendum on virtually everything. If you like monarchies so much, why don’t you sod off to Saudi Arabia? Or better yet, stop hating your fellow countrymen.

    • Bob Man
      June 5, 2012 at 7:02 pm

      Wow, so much hyperbole. Our government makes the rules, our government is elected, ergo, we have a democracy (however much the voting system sucks). Royalty does not make the laws, they cannot revoke them. They could, in theory, dismiss a government but it has never been done.

      There’s a good test for democracy and arguments of this kind, namely. What can you NOT do under this current set-up that you COULD do under a republican system? I mean actual, real things that effect your life, not semantic arguments of whether you are a citizen or subject?

    • Joe
      November 23, 2012 at 1:45 am

      Total b*ll*cks. You ARE a CITIZEN, the LAW says so. And you get to vote for the government of your choice, so stop with with the “we’re not a democracy” tripe – no-one with a brain believes that nonsense.

  20. JayneB
    June 5, 2012 at 8:50 am

    100% agree with the comments in this article. Ridiculous amount of money, OUR money, has been spent on this pomp and ceremony. On the face of it, nobody who lives outside of London gains anything positive from having a monarchy, so those who support the monarchy can wave the ‘tourism’ card as much as they want. So what was all this about ‘austerity’?? If we all have to tighten our belts then it should apply to everyone. The blinkered view held by so many that the Queen has served this country for 60 years should also take into account that she hasn’t done a hard days work in her life, nor has she ever had to wonder where to get the money to pay for ever-increasing bills and to put food on the table. If anyone needs to know the definition of ‘serving our country’, go and Google ‘soldier killed in Afghanistan’!!!

    • Wonderwoman
      June 6, 2012 at 10:40 am

      I believe most of the money for the celebrations came from private sponsorship, and what did come from the public purse will have been repaid many fold from the money that was brought in during the celebrations.

      • JayneB
        June 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm

        Only the funding for the Thames Pageant came from private sponsorship – everything else was paid for by taxpayers. The money earned during the celebrations will nowhere near cover what was paid and even if that were the case, it’s not like the taxpayers will get that money back now is it?

  21. Sam
    June 5, 2012 at 2:27 am

    Excellent article, you are very right, shame that so many people are blind followers, they don’t even realise their own foolishness.

  22. Verity Justice
    June 4, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with the article.
    I felt very aggrieved when a BBC reporter blithely informed us that the gold leaf adorning the Royal barge covered the equivalent of a football pitch!!!
    I understand that gold leaf is very thin…but, given the price of gold and the “We are all in it together” austerity slogan surely common sense dictates that this opulence is neither called for or necessary.
    If ER II wants gold leaf then ER II should pay for it from her well filled coffers.
    The cost of the gold could well have funded oncology treatment and medication to those over seventy years old who are being cynically denied surgery/medication that could and probably would extend their lives so we mere taxpaying plebicans could have the privilege of having our mums, mum-in-laws with us for longer.

    The three billion pound cost of this Tudorite (Henry VIII would have been well pleased with the spectacle), would have funded:
    Disability Living Allowance for those with heart conditions,
    terminal cancer, permanent physical disability due to accident or war injuries instead of all the above being deemed fit for work by a medically unqualified money making quango who’s government remit is to deprive those in need for the sake of filling the fiscal black hole the previous administration left us in as a departing gift and is being further dug to new depths by this administration.

    Austerity? Tightening of belts? ER II, the present administration and it’s cohorts wouldn’t doff their crowns and coronets at it.

    Nothing has changed in regard to the Monarchy and the crippling taxation of the poor to fund said Monarchy since the execution of Charles I and the dissolution of Parliament by Oliver Cromwell.

    It was for what we witnessed yesterday and the ongoing injustice in so many areas of British life today that Cromwell did what he did in 1648.

    As he said then, and is appropriate for our time, “The Monarchy and Parliament has sold this Nation for a mess of pottage”.

    • Steve Knight
      June 5, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      Cromwell was a f……. who beacame corrupted more than that which he replaced. There’s a reason the Cromwellian Republic failed so badly.

  23. Bobjob
    June 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    This is a view that many feel and are afraid to express in a country where power has resided in the same families and institutions for hundreds of years. I agree with Mr Peytors. If there is to be a monarchy, let it pay for itself as it does in other countries. There is no reason why we should foothe bill. Certainly, the Queen and her tribe have never done anything for me!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.