unixman_again Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Queen Elizabeth Is Dead? BBC Reporter's Tweet Sparks Rumor : snopes.com BBC journalist Ahmen Khawaja accidentally sends Twitter update that Queen is in hospital – blames 'silly prank' | Metro News
Arreks Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I mean, I know she's old but wow.. talk about jumping the gun!
tmcd35 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I mean, I know she's old but wow.. talk about jumping the gun! Saw an interesting report on this once, think it was on BBC News' Point of View. Apparently, no matter how old you are, if you are remotely in the public eye then they have your obituary pre-written with archive video footage ready to go when the untimely news hits. While it's unfortunate the Tweet got out into the wild, the actual process, preperation and practice run is nothing out of the ordinary.
CAM Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Saw an interesting report on this once, think it was on BBC News' Point of View. Apparently, no matter how old you are, if you are remotely in the public eye then they have your obituary pre-written with archive video footage ready to go when the untimely news hits. While it's unfortunate the Tweet got out into the wild, the actual process, preperation and practice run is nothing out of the ordinary. She's the Queen, it isn't just a pre-written obituary at hand but the entire Emergency Alert System for UK broadcasting primed 24/7 to announce her death. Every radio and TV channel will be interrupted to announce her death with an emergency news bulletin.
Andrew_C Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 It hardly matters; there's another one ready to take her place.
tmcd35 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 She's the Queen, it isn't just a pre-written obituary at hand but the entire Emergency Alert System for UK broadcasting primed 24/7 to announce her death. Every radio and TV channel will be interrupted to announce her death with an emergency news bulletin. I bet I still miss it and only find out the next day on here
jdoyle Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 It hardly matters; there's another one ready to take her place. unfortunately Vive la République!
sted Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 unfortunately Vive la République! there ought to be some debate vote about this as at least in my opinion when she dies/abdicates that should be the end of the royal family they as far as I can see serve no useful purpose apart from a few extra people for tabloids to write about. I see no reason why they should by dint of birth have any power at all
localzuk Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 there ought to be some debate vote about this as at least in my opinion when she dies/abdicates that should be the end of the royal family they as far as I can see serve no useful purpose apart from a few extra people for tabloids to write about. I see no reason why they should by dint of birth have any power at all Even with a vote, it would be *very* unlikely that the monarchy would end... The last survey that I saw (2013) had republic at 14%.
sted Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Even with a vote, it would be *very* unlikely that the monarchy would end... The last survey that I saw (2013) had republic at 14%. at least we could have a say though even if nothing changes
Tesla Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 at least we could have a say though even if nothing changes Bit like politics then?
TechMonkey Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 It is amazing how many plans and processes there are in the background involving all kinds of organisations you wouldn't think of and more and more they are being brought out, updated and checked as people realise the inevitable has to happen. Feels a bit morbid being involved but is also reassuring. It is also interesting the hush hush nature of it, understandably really.
tmcd35 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 there ought to be some debate vote about this as at least in my opinion when she dies/abdicates that should be the end of the royal family they as far as I can see serve no useful purpose apart from a few extra people for tabloids to write about. I see no reason why they should by dint of birth have any power at all I can't remember the exact details now but there was some kind of deal done around land, property, valuables, and what we pay them each year that means the treasury actually makes much more than we pay them - we have more to loose financially by getting rid of them. Also, I doubt Americans will be so interesting in visiting the old country and having their snap taken outside El'Presidenti's palace.
tmcd35 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Here it is: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained — CGP Grey We make £200m in profit from their lands, that they own. Pay them £40m, and keep the other £160m...
sted Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Here it is: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained — CGP Grey We make £200m in profit from their lands, that they own. Pay them £40m, and keep the other £160m... still no reason for them to have any power whatsoever because of who their ancestors were and in tax terms lets be honest that's peanuts anyway
mjk Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Even with a vote, it would be *very* unlikely that the monarchy would end... The last survey that I saw (2013) had republic at 14%. Only 24% of people eligible to vote actually voted for the Conservatives, so never say never.
ICTDirect_Dave Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Here it is: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained — CGP Grey We make £200m in profit from their lands, that they own. Pay them £40m, and keep the other £160m... That's a good read and puts forward exactly what I always say about the monarchy. They bring in more than they cost, they have no real power other than the ceremonial, and they make us a far more interesting nation. Nothing wrong with them at all in my eyes
tmcd35 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 That's a good read and puts forward exactly what I always say about the monarchy. They bring in more than they cost, they have no real power other than the ceremonial, and they make us a far more interesting nation. Nothing wrong with them at all in my eyes I'm a republican at heart, but I have to admit getting rid of them is a case of cutting your nose of to spite your face. What will achieve other than a minor wording change from 'subject' to 'citizen'? Cameron would still be the de-facto head of state, unless we're talking about major constitutional reform and giving El'Presidenti more political powers than the queen currently enjoys? Besides - gullable American tourists
Gatt Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Besides - gullable American tourists Was talking about this with Mrs Gatt the other day and we pretty much said the same thing, that the Palace is one of the biggest tourist traps in the UK Virtually all who come to the UK will end up going to London to stand outside Buckingham Palace and then they will buy the tourist tat from nearby, then go for something to eat, whilst using the tube or the buses, before heading on (or coming from) other destinations Personally, I think Charles should step aside when the inevitable times comes and hand over to William
JJonas Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 still no reason for them to have any power whatsoever because of who their ancestors were and in tax terms lets be honest that's peanuts anyway If you watch the video you will see that they bring in £7000 million in profit from tourism.
jdoyle Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 If you watch the video you will see that they bring in £7000 million in profit from tourism. So you don't have to watch the video, the author (never heard of him but must be a 100% spot on source of data....) has the transcript on the page. Are any other sources available to verify the £7000million profit? Seriously? That's the reason we have/should keep a Monarchy in the UK.... the mind boggles. Surprised the US, French, Germans etc haven't copped on to this economic windfall and .... oh, they've found other ways of generating revenues. Visitor economy facts | VisitBritain http://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/Documents-Library/documents/Foresight-issue_127.pdf http://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/Documents-Library/documents/2014-2%20Types%20of%20area%20that%20potential%20visitors%20to%20Britain%20would%20most%20like%20to%20stay%20in.pdf
tmcd35 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 So you don't have to watch the video, the author (never heard of him but must be a 100% spot on source of data....) has the transcript on the page. Are any other sources available to verify the £7000million profit? I'm guessing he did the math based on the source he linked to at the bottom of his page: 2014 snapshot | VisitBritain <- They'll be the official figures
clockend25 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Sooner we get rid the better. The fact that people resort to tourism as a justification for having these unelected numpties lording over us says it all really. In any case, anything tourists are drawn here to see would still remain and in fact could be opened up further if certain squatters were evicted, making them better attractions. Citizen not subject.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now