The monarchy

[21.05.2016]

Yes or no?


Personally I think its an outdated nonsence that we have these unelected people that have the highest stake in society for no reason other than the fact they were lucky enough to be born into it.

[Sir David Gray]

Whilst the Queen's alive then no but after she dies I'm not particularly bothered.

It is very outdated but there's very little call for the monarchy to be scrapped and it still enjoys high approval ratings across the country.

[Bristolhibby]

I can't square Monarchy with Democracy.

Everyone must be equal under law. One person one vote.

Yet here we have a system where one person by chance of birth is anointed above everyone else. It is her (or his) Parliament, Armed Forces and Judicary. Nonsense.

J

[JeMeSouviens]

Republic asap

[Hibernia&Alba]

Abolition after the death of the queen, IMO. Also, if the second independence referendum delivers a yes vote, Scotland should not retain the monarchy. Keeping it would be nonsense.

[The Modfather]

Why would some who want to abolish the monarchy wait until after the current Queen passes? Genuinely intrigued rather than trying to be arsey.

Assume it's because she's been the queen so long, and it's not her fault she was born, so deserves to see out however long is left. If so, can understand that. However, and I'm sure she is a nice old lady, but I'd have no issues with scrapping the monarchy tomorrow if it was possible.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Why would some who want to abolish the monarchy wait until after the current Queen passes? Genuinely intrigued rather than trying to be arsey.

Assume it's because she's been the queen so long, and it's not her fault she was born, so deserves to see out however long is left. If so, can understand that. However, and I'm sure she is a nice old lady, but I'd have no issues with scrapping the monarchy tomorrow if it was possible.

Me too, but isn't going to happen. The old girl is in her nineties; let her see out her time then have the debate. House of Lords needs to go, too.

[NAE NOOKIE]

A load of medieval nonsense that should have been binned decades ago .... Kings, Queens and princes belong in history books, Disney films and fairy tales, where they don't belong is unelected head of state.

The very concept that someone is due position, public office, respect or deference because of who they were born is a nonsense.

Republic now :aok:

[Off the bar]

Ah the great Royal debate.

Do we hang them or do we shoot them? Hmm

[Pretty Boy]

Outdated nonsense but inexplicably popular so it's going nowhere.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Me too, but isn't going to happen. The old girl is in her nineties; let her see out her time then have the debate. House of Lords needs to go, too.

When she dies there'll be national mourning which will increase the popularity and we'll have next to no chance of getting rid of them.

Do it now - she'll have enough money to retire on I'm sure.

[G B Young]

Outdated nonsense but inexplicably popular so it's going nowhere.

The monarchy generates vast sums for the nation (about half a billion pounds every year) through tourism. Outdated for sure, but people love the colour and pageantry it brings and for me we're better off with it than without it. The royals have close ties to Scotland and remain very popular here, which is why even the odious Alex Salmond was keen to make retaining the monarchy part of his failed 2014 referendum agenda.

[Scouse Hibee]

Yes GSTQ.

[Bristolhibby]

The monarchy generates vast sums for the nation (about half a billion pounds every year) through tourism. Outdated for sure, but people love the colour and pageantry it brings and for me we're better off with it than without it. The royals have close ties to Scotland and remain very popular here, which is why even the odious Alex Salmond was keen to make retaining the monarchy part of his failed 2014 referendum agenda.

Tourists come and will come regardless of a monarchy. That's such an old Trope.

Versailles looks pretty busy.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9KLWtcae1Ck/maxresdefault.jpg

J

[easty]

The monarchy generates vast sums for the nation (about half a billion pounds every year) through tourism. Outdated for sure, but people love the colour and pageantry it brings and for me we're better off with it than without it. The royals have close ties to Scotland and remain very popular here, which is why even the odious Alex Salmond was keen to make retaining the monarchy part of his failed 2014 referendum agenda.

Do you believe that the money generated through tourism (and it's not half a billion) would just disappear if we got rid of the monarchy?

"Well we were going to vacation in the U.K, but I just don't see any reason to now. I'd been looking forward to meeting the Queen, but with the royal family being abolished, I think I'll just go to Disneyland instead."

[Killiehibbie]

Ah the great Royal debate.

Do we hang them or do we shoot them? Hmm
Both.

[ronaldo7]

On a day our First Minister suggests Westminster is out of touch with Scotland, Boris Johnson supports a big shiny boat for the queen.

Time to get rid.

[steakbake]

Do you believe that the money generated through tourism (and it's not half a billion) would just disappear if we got rid of the monarchy?

"Well we were going to vacation in the U.K, but I just don't see any reason to now. I'd been looking forward to meeting the Queen, but with the royal family being abolished, I think I'll just go to Disneyland instead."

Ha - very true. If the best folks can come up with is that the Battenburgs are a tourist attraction, I'm not sure that's strong enough to argue for their constitutional position.

[DaveF]

I think we should have a referendum :-D

[Hibbyradge]

We'd need to elect a Labour government first . . .

[Geo_1875]

The monarchy generates vast sums for the nation (about half a billion pounds every year) through tourism. Outdated for sure, but people love the colour and pageantry it brings and for me we're better off with it than without it. The royals have close ties to Scotland and remain very popular here, which is why even the odious Alex Salmond was keen to make retaining the monarchy part of his failed 2014 referendum agenda.

That's because they and their friends own most of Scotland. And I think you'll find they're not "hugely popular" outside Ayrshire and Govan.

[makaveli1875]

if independence does happen , why would we keep the monarchy ? surely if we did we would still need to pay our taxes to the queen .

if we ditch the monarchy would we be allowed to drive through holyrood on a sunday , and drive commercial vehicles through the park ?

[Bristolhibby]

if independence does happen , why would we keep the monarchy ? surely if we did we would still need to pay our taxes to the queen .

if we ditch the monarchy would we be allowed to drive through holyrood on a sunday , and drive commercial vehicles through the park ?

Like Hibs promotion run, let's fight one fight at a time.

Independence first, then we can vote to become a republic.
We already don't have the baggage of the House of Lords (a subset of Monarchy and another affront to democracy) in Holyrood.

J

[easty]

if independence does happen , why would we keep the monarchy ? surely if we did we would still need to pay our taxes to the queen .

if we ditch the monarchy would we be allowed to drive through holyrood on a sunday , and drive commercial vehicles through the park ?

I do want rid of them, but to be honest, thats not a big incentive to me.

[Geo_1875]

if independence does happen , why would we keep the monarchy ? surely if we did we would still need to pay our taxes to the queen .

if we ditch the monarchy would we be allowed to drive through holyrood on a sunday , and drive commercial vehicles through the park ?

Do the Aussies pay taxes to Liz? Surely we could keep her as a figurehead and charge her council tax on the her vast estates in Scotland.

[G B Young]

Do you believe that the money generated through tourism (and it's not half a billion) would just disappear if we got rid of the monarchy?

"Well we were going to vacation in the U.K, but I just don't see any reason to now. I'd been looking forward to meeting the Queen, but with the royal family being abolished, I think I'll just go to Disneyland instead."

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

[Slavers]

I would get rid of the Monarchy. Their friendship with Jimmy Savile spoke volumes on how they operate.

[easty]

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

I maybe didn't word it right. My point being, that people would go to these places whether we had a Royal Family or not, so they don't generate anything near that.

[CapitalGreen]

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

If we abolished the Monarchy would we get rid of these tourist attractions? I am not sure the bulldozers would be at the gates of the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace if we did. I imagine Buckingham Palace would generate even more revenue if we evicted Lizzie and opened it up to the public.

[Geo_1875]

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

Is that gross or net of taxpayers contributions?

As an aside, I heard on the radio this morning that the taxpayer is paying £500,000,000 per annum to David Cameron's National Citizen Service making it the most expensive youth club in Britain.

[Mon Dieu4]

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

What that doesn't tell you is how they came up with the figure, they guestimated that 1/4 of tourism to Britain was down to the royals

[JeMeSouviens]

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

Buck House visits per year - 413K
Palace of Versailles visits per year - >3M

If only we had a nice shiny guillotine ... :wink:

[NAE NOOKIE]

The monarchy generates vast sums for the nation (about half a billion pounds every year) through tourism. Outdated for sure, but people love the colour and pageantry it brings and for me we're better off with it than without it. The royals have close ties to Scotland and remain very popular here, which is why even the odious Alex Salmond was keen to make retaining the monarchy part of his failed 2014 referendum agenda.

Any statistics showing the royal family attract tourists are pure conjecture and considering far more tourists visit France where there is no monarchy than the UK it hardly makes a case for the theory that tourists wouldn't come if there was no royal family either.

I would hardly call having a couple of holiday homes and giving themselves titles like the Duke of Edinburgh or Lord of the Isles or whatever qualifies as close ties to Scotland ..... the last British monarch to be born in Scotland was something like 400 years ago, you would have thought that if they were so concerned about their 'Scottishness' at least once in that 400 years they would have went to the bother of dropping a sprog here ..... I understand that the queens sister was born here, but when she was neither her nor Lizzy were anywhere near the top of the royal tree so far as the succession was concerned.

As for being 'popular' most folk I know are at best totally ambivalent to the royals.

As for Alex Salmond ..... why on earth would he go into one fight and at the same time pick another, no general looks for a battle on two fronts coz its madness, as that nice Mr Hitler would tell you. Saying Scotland would keep the royals post independence would be unlikely to kick republicans like me into such a frenzy that we wouldn't have voted yes .... but saying we would ditch the royals afterwards would undoubtedly have swayed some of your more dedicated royalist who were leaning towards yes to vote otherwise .... I doubt he came to that conclusion because the royals are 'very' popular, but because it would have caused a distraction neither him nor the yes campaign needed.

At the end of the day none of that matters if you are a confirmed republican like me ... its not an economic argument its a moral one ... nobody should be set above another citizen of this, or any other country, because of who they were born. Accident of birth should not entitle you to the position of head of state, nor should it entitle you to automatic respect or deference .... its adding insult to bloody injury to expect us to pay for the privilege.

My ex wife once went for a job at a local estate and was told that if lord X came into the office he should be referred to as 'your grace' like some sort of episode of upstairs downstairs ..... 19th century bloody nonsense.

[Colr]

Yes or no?


Personally I think its an outdated nonsence that we have these unelected people that have the highest stake in society for no reason other than the fact they were lucky enough to be born into it.

No. Get rid of the House of Lords and set it up as a UK assembly under the 4 seperate parliaments to deal with collective, federal issues then elect a president rotating across the 4 UK countries.

[Colr]

The monarchy generates vast sums for the nation (about half a billion pounds every year) through tourism. Outdated for sure, but people love the colour and pageantry it brings and for me we're better off with it than without it. The royals have close ties to Scotland and remain very popular here, which is why even the odious Alex Salmond was keen to make retaining the monarchy part of his failed 2014 referendum agenda.

I don't swallow that. Paris seems to do OK for tourists and its nowhere near as nice as London!!@

Most foreigners (esp US) when pushed will admit they find the royal family a ridiculous anachronism.

They're at the top of the class system. If we are to dismantle that, we need to start at the top.

[yonder1875]

Get the queen and the royal family in the bin.

[snooky]

Do you believe that the money generated through tourism (and it's not half a billion) would just disappear if we got rid of the monarchy?

"Well we were going to vacation in the U.K, but I just don't see any reason to now. I'd been looking forward to meeting the Queen, but with the royal family being abolished, I think I'll just go to Disneyland instead."

Just checked the change in my pocket. I don't see any dollars or euros, etc.
Where's my share of the so-called tourist billions?

[Lancs Harp]

I'd abolish Parliament and restore absolute monarchy.

Politicians are self promoting egotistical *****

[Slavers]

I think the royals are far more sinister than anyone really wants to admit.

[snooky]

I'd abolish Parliament and restore absolute monarchy.

Politicians are self promoting egotistical *****

The ideal rule is by a fair and wise tyrant. :stirrer:

[Lancs Harp]

The ideal rule is by a fair and wise tyrant. :stirrer:


:wink:

[Mr White]

There's no chance of an equal, fair or just society with the kind of unequal, unfair and unjust privilege that the royal family enjoy imo.

[Lancs Harp]

There's no chance of an equal, fair or just society with the kind of unequal, unfair and unjust privilege that the royal family enjoy imo.

Whether its the monarchy, politicians, business or whatever, money holds the power and influence, always has done, always will do. You only have to look at our justice system (which is better than most countries) to see that. The more money you can throw at soething the more chance you have at success. Thats hardly a fair and just society.

[Hibrandenburg]

Off with their heads!

[Mr White]

Whether its the monarchy, politicians, business or whatever, money holds the power and influence, always has done, always will do. You only have to look at our justice system (which is better than most countries) to see that. The more money you can throw at soething the more chance you have at success. Thats hardly a fair and just society.

Politicians fight their way through elections. Successful business people out think their competitors. Fair play to them for their effort even if their intentions usually tend toward the machiavellian.

On the other hand,and just for example, let's look at Prince Edward. Useless **** who's had everything paid for by his underlings (... the unpriveleged rest of us) throughout his pointless pampered life. If the intention is to strive toward a fair society then having a monarchy is an absolute non-starter for me.

[Lancs Harp]

Politicians fight their way through elections. Successful business people out think their competitors. Fair play to them for their effort even if their intentions usually tend toward the machiavellian.

On the other hand,and just for example, let's look at Prince Edward. Useless **** who's had everything paid for by his underlings (... us) throughout his pointless pampered life. As a template for a fair society having a monarchy is an absolute non-starter for me.

Society would be no fairer without a monarchy. It makes no difference to the day to day living of any of our lives.

[Mr White]

Society would be no fairer without a monarchy. It makes no difference to the day to day living of any of our lives.

I disagree. It has a trickle down effect and does influence how our society functions. In theory there's no barrier to people trying to become politicians or being successful in business. The monarchy on the other hand is closed to all but a very select few. I say you can't have a society that places any genuine emphasis on fairness and or equality on that basis. And that's the kind of society I would like to see.

[Lancs Harp]

I disagree. It has a trickle down effect and does influence how our society functions. There's no barrier to people trying to become politicians or being successful in business. The monarchy on the other hand is closed to all but a very select few. I say you can't have a society that places any genuine emphasis on fairness and or equality on that basis. And that's the kind of society I would like to see.

We can agree to disagree my friend.

IMO power is corrupt no matter who the power is.

[Mr White]

We can agree to disagree my friend.

IMO power is corrupt no matter who the power is.

Sadly probably so. However that doesn't justify making it easy for some by accident of birth while others have to bleed and sweat just to survive.

[The Harp Awakes]

We can agree to disagree my friend.

IMO power is corrupt no matter who the power is.

Not all people in power are corrupt, but they are more likely to be corrupt if they are in power through privilege of birth.

Leadership needs to be earned not inherited. The monarchy is one of the last bastions of a discredited British Empire which should have no place in a modern society.

[Berwickhibby]

I would get rid of the Monarchy. Their friendship with Jimmy Savile spoke volumes on how they operate.

That's like saying lets get rid of Hibernian FC... They employed Gordon Neely, speaks volumes on how a club operates....... What a load of tosh


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hibs#1]

Me too, but isn't going to happen. The old girl is in her nineties; let her see out her time then have the debate. House of Lords needs to go, too.

I'm no fan of the royals,but I'd get rid of the house of Lords 1st and as soon as.

[Geo_1875]

I'm no fan of the royals,but I'd get rid of the house of Lords 1st and as soon as.

Did you see this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39255034 Taking taxpayers money for nothing but we don't want to shine the spotlight of the media on the sensitive little souls. A pity we didn't have a 18th century revolution along with most of the civilised world.

[Hibbyradge]

I'd abolish Parliament and restore absolute monarchy.

Politicians are self promoting egotistical *****

Huzzah!

[Slavers]

That's like saying lets get rid of Hibernian FC... They employed Gordon Neely, speaks volumes on how a club operates....... What a load of tosh


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OK so you are telling me the Royals knew nothing of Sir Jimmys antics? He was a close friend to the Royals, a fix it person for them so to speak.

[Berwickhibby]

OK so you are telling me the Royals knew nothing of Sir Jimmys antics? He was a close friend to the Royals, a fix it person for them so to speak.

In a word "Yes" I do believe they knew nothing about it, do you believe that Hibs management and board knew about Neely's antics.... Me neither


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Slavers]

In a word "Yes" I do believe they knew nothing about it, do you believe that Hibs management and board knew about Neely's antics.... Me neither


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OK so you can become a close friends and associate to the Royals and be welcomed into their homes with out the security services checking everything detail about you.

In Jimmys words from his book, if the took him down he was taking everyone down with him. Hence why the day after he died it all came out but not before.

The awful truth needs faced or it will never change.

[Berwickhibby]

I agree whole heartedly.... Saville was protected by the establishment..... He should have prosecuted to full and jailed for life, however I would suggest the finger should point at the sleazy politicians who actually have power who were also involved in this depraved behaviour


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alex Trager]

I agree whole heartedly.... Saville was protected by the establishment..... He should have prosecuted to full and jailed for life, however I would suggest the finger should point at the sleazy politicians who actually have power who were also involved in this depraved behaviour


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Some of his interviews are shocking.

The whole Johnny Rotten thing is absolutely mental too

[Colr]

Some of his interviews are shocking.

The whole six vicious thing is absolutely mental too

Apparently he didn't go for Xmas lunch at Maggie Thatchers though it would be horrific to think he did.

What Siz Vicious thing?

[Alex Trager]

Apparently he didn't go for Xmas lunch at Maggie Thatchers though it would be horrific to think he did.

What Siz Vicious thing?

I meant Sid Vicious

And I now realise I meant Johnny Rotten.

https://youtu.be/Rjy8oLVOvi4

[Colr]

Worth a read

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

[JeMeSouviens]

Worth a read

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

I read that yesterday. I think it'll be a case of turn the telly off for at least a fortnight. :rolleyes:

[Colr]

I read that yesterday. I think it'll be a case of turn the telly off for at least a fortnight. :rolleyes:

I was in a wee old Irish bar in Liverpool when the announcement of the Queen Mother's death came on the news.

"That's enough of that!" said the owner straight away and switched over to the horse racing.

[snooky]

I read that yesterday. I think it'll be a case of turn the telly off for at least a fortnight. :rolleyes:

I see this scenario in my house....

"The Queen is Dead. Long live .............. Rock'n'Roll" :rockin:

BTW, can you imagine the chaos it will cause amongst the hierarchy if London Bridge ACTUALLY does come down and the Queen is fine?

[Haymaker]

Worth a read

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

Very interesting that.

[Colr]

Very interesting that.

I understand that the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square is reserved for a statue of Liz 2 on horseback.

[snooky]

I understand that the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square is reserved for a statue of Liz 2 on horseback.

I propose we put a bronze sculpture of SDG on it first.

[Colr]

i propose we put a bronze sculpture of sdg on it first.

sdg?

[CropleyWasGod]

sdg?
Ltyf 😁


(It's Some Daft German)

[Glory Lurker]

Anyone who is against folk being overworked should surely support the abolition of the whole lot of them, for their own, exhausted sakes. They do so much for us, but are we worth it? :greengrin

[snooky]

sdg?

"Cup final SirDG"

[McD]

Worth a read

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge


Fascinating read

[ronaldo7]

Maybe, Liz, the first, could pay for her upgrade from her vast fortunes invested offshore.

https://t.co/IxQwgsuNVk

#Paradisepapers

[Smartie]

Maybe, Liz, the first, could pay for her upgrade from her vast fortunes invested offshore.

https://t.co/IxQwgsuNVk

#Paradisepapers



#Parasitepapers

[jockodile]

All the arguments against the monarchy are understandable. It is the head of the class system and runs contrary to the democratic principle.

That said I do think something would be lost getting rid. Should we ever get to independence I am not so sure we should quickly ditch. If anything a new house of Stuart would be my preference, imagine the PR if the Scottish king was able to make state visits to other sovereign countries.

Franz in Bavaria is getting on a bit nowadays but Max and younger members of the family should be on the christmas card lists though nothing formal unless QE2's reign is over.

[Colr]

All the arguments against the monarchy are understandable. It is the head of the class system and runs contrary to the democratic principle.

That said I do think something would be lost getting rid. Should we ever get to independence I am not so sure we should quickly ditch. If anything a new house of Stuart would be my preference, imagine the PR if the Scottish king was able to make state visits to other sovereign countries.

Franz in Bavaria is getting on a bit nowadays but Max and younger members of the family should be on the christmas card lists though nothing formal unless QE2's reign is over.

Good Lord, no.

I’d be happier with Hearty Harry making state visits on our behalf. We can have a president if we must.

[snooky]

Maybe, Liz, the first, could pay for her upgrade from her vast fortunes invested offshore.

https://t.co/IxQwgsuNVk

#Paradisepapers

We have investments offshore surely. It's called oil.
Pity it's not worth anything. :rolleyes:

[Pretty Boy]

Interesting that the Queens offshore dealings have been quietly moved from the BBCs front page and replaced with the far more important revelation that 3 members of the Mrs Browns Boys cast have £2M invested offshore.

[Mr White]

Interesting that the Queens offshore dealings have been quietly moved from the BBCs front page and replaced with the far more important revelation that 3 members of the Mrs Browns Boys cast have £2M invested offshore.

Looks like Lewis Hamilton is taking one for her maj too now :greengrin

[silverhibee]

"Are you a Rangers fan". Desmond Dermot on writing to the journalist from Panorama. :tee hee:

[Betty Boop]

Maybe, Liz, the first, could pay for her upgrade from her vast fortunes invested offshore.

https://t.co/IxQwgsuNVk

#Paradisepapers

So the Queen has 10 million stashed away in another country, while ordinary Joes are suffering. Maybe she could donate it to Grenfell where poor souls are still waiting to be rehoused, or even the poppy appeal in remembrance of those who gave their lives for Queen and country.

[Hibbyradge]

The tax payer gives money to the Queen who then hides it off shore to avoid giving the tax payer anything back.

Genius.

[ancient hibee]

Of course the stuff she has offshore isn't taxed in the UK anyway so there's no saving in tax.The income from it in the UK is taxed voluntarily although she doesn't have to pay it but chooses to do so.I'm no royalist but this is the reason the BBC has downplayed it-it's a non story and they hadn't realised when they first splashed it.
As for the others-it's not exactly a revelation that tax havens are used for tax avoidance-hence the name:greengrin-The IOM situation with the aviation industry has been available for years-that's why they all use it.
I understand that in new revelations it is going to be revealed that the Pope veers towards Catholicism.

[Geo_1875]

Of course the stuff she has offshore isn't taxed in the UK anyway so there's no saving in tax.The income from it in the UK is taxed voluntarily although she doesn't have to pay it but chooses to do so.I'm no royalist but this is the reason the BBC has downplayed it-it's a non story and they hadn't realised when they first splashed it.
As for the others-it's not exactly a revelation that tax havens are used for tax avoidance-hence the name:greengrin-The IOM situation with the aviation industry has been available for years-that's why they all use it.
I understand that in new revelations it is going to be revealed that the Pope veers towards Catholicism.

All very true. However, opting to pay the lower tax rates available "offshore" means that the exchequer has to balance the books by hitting ordinary people like you and me in the pocket. As for the Queen "choosing" to pay income tax, on her unearned income, she only did so in 1993 and only after a huge increase in her publicly funded pocket money.

[Colr]

100th anniversary of the October Revolution today.

[Geo_1875]

100th anniversary of the October Revolution today.

And nearly 200 years on from Peterloo. We're to late for revolution but never been more in need of one.

[RyeSloan]

All very true. However, opting to pay the lower tax rates available "offshore" means that the exchequer has to balance the books by hitting ordinary people like you and me in the pocket. As for the Queen "choosing" to pay income tax, on her unearned income, she only did so in 1993 and only after a huge increase in her publicly funded pocket money.

The problem with all of his is that it's the Treasury and others that are setting the rules.

Lewis saves himself £3.3m but the scheme appears to be perfectly legal.

Should we blame Lewis or the people setting the rules?

[Geo_1875]

The problem with all of his is that it's the Treasury and others that are setting the rules.

Lewis saves himself £3.3m but the scheme appears to be perfectly legal.

Should we blame Lewis or the people setting the rules?

That's a bad example as he's lied about his personal use of the jet to qualify for a VAT exemption. Or his accountants have lied about it.

The schemes are designed by rich people for rich people so who do you blame?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's a bad example as he's lied about his personal use of the jet to qualify for a VAT exemption. Or his accountants have lied about it.

The schemes are designed by rich people for rich people so who do you blame?

I kinda agree with you, but i know lots of self employed people who use tax loopholes to avoid tax. An accountant wouldnt be doing his job properly if they didnt.

Also i dount the civil servants who designed schemes are rich.

[CropleyWasGod]

I kinda agree with you, but i know lots of self employed people who use tax loopholes to avoid tax. An accountant wouldnt be doing his job properly if they didnt.

Also i dount the civil servants who designed schemes are rich.

Part of the problem is that tax laws are so complex nowadays, which has come about through successive Governments, of all hues, trying to "simplify" things and coming up with an increasingly convoluted mess. That creates an opportunity for challenge by highly-paid and highly-skilled people.

So you have those people on the one side, and HMRC staff on the other. The latter are relatively poorly paid, arguably less-motivated and, in the face of austerity, under-resourced.

[JeMeSouviens]

Part of the problem is that tax laws are so complex nowadays, which has come about through successive Governments, of all hues, trying to "simplify" things and coming up with an increasingly convoluted mess. That creates an opportunity for challenge by highly-paid and highly-skilled people.

So you have those people on the one side, and HMRC staff on the other. The latter are relatively poorly paid, arguably less-motivated and, in the face of austerity, under-resourced.

A lot of the time the former are the more experienced, head hunted ex-colleagues of the latter.

[CropleyWasGod]

A lot of the time the former are the more experienced, head hunted ex-colleagues of the latter.

Yup, I've known of plenty.

And why wouldn't they? :greengrin

[ancient hibee]

The BBC holierthan thou approach is nauseating.This is an organisation who allowed employees to form companies so that their wage from the BBC was treated as fees and not subject to PAYE resulting in a much lower tax bill for the individual and no employers NHI for the beeb.As they would say this is of course not illegal.