Guestbook opened for now. We aren't registering members at the moment. Guests wanting to post brief queries may post in our guestbook. No lengthy debates please. Kindly note: MV is a place for serious learning through mutual consultation where we have zero tolerance for trouble-makers, narcissists and needless disputants. We simply stand for what is compatible with the Noble Quran regardless of titles such as "traditionalism" or "modernism."
Muslim Villa
April 21, 2021, 01:06:06 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

A cheap publicity stunt by the old tax thieves

July 07, 2020, 11:23:26 am N. Truth Seeker: InshAllah, vaccine will come but might take a bit of time.
July 07, 2020, 11:22:43 am Heba E. Husseyn: Exactly ... !
July 07, 2020, 11:22:10 am Zeynab: World stuck in a pandemic desperately needs a vaccine.
July 07, 2020, 11:21:18 am N. Truth Seeker: lol true.
July 07, 2020, 11:20:59 am N. Truth Seeker: Very soon it will be neck deep.
July 07, 2020, 11:20:23 am Heba E. Husseyn: Dr. Fauci in US says country is knee-deep in pandemic.
May 30, 2019, 06:15:49 am Zeynab: Alhudulilah, yes sister Ruhi.  Time flies in this fleeting world.  May Allah The Almighty accept our hard work in the permanent world.  That's the real success.
May 30, 2019, 03:43:58 am Ruhi_Rose: Jumaa-tul-widaa (farewell to Ramadan) tomorrow Friday 31.  How time flies!  Ya Allah, keep us close to Your mercy.
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: A cheap publicity stunt by the old tax thieves  (Read 129 times)
Heba E. Husseyn
Hero Member
Posts: 3821

Badges: (View All)
« on: March 01, 2008, 09:16:53 pm »

Hey guys! What would say about the new royal scheme for entertaining the Brits? Harry being packed off to Afghanistan. It's said that he was sent to Helmand province a couple of days before Christmas'07. He was called back when 'discovered by the media' a couple of days ago. The calculation according to the British press states that Harry was in Afghanistan for 3 months. Actually he was there for only 2 months, not that 3 months would mean a long time. But for a short mission as this, there's a big difference between two and three months. Also, Helmand is not the most dangerous place in Afghanistan as stated by the media. It's actually the safest. As per the media's own former assessemnts, the most dangerous spot in Afghanistan is Kandahar. When Harry had to "cut short his mission" and return home after the 'cat was out of the bag,' the look on his face was inerpreted by the media as sad on having to return without finishing his mission. That's because it was fun time for Harry, unlike other soldiers. Let's face it.

Is there anyone who really believes that the idea wasn't pre-arranged with a motive? Does anyone believe that Harry was put at the same level of risk as other soldiers - my foot! The press shouldn't underestimate and insult public perception so rudely. With the existing relationship between the gossipy media and the Brit royals, it's impossible Buckingham Palace didn't realise that sooner rather than later the secret would be out. Moreover, is there anyone who's naive enough to believe that when the Brit royals pretend that they don't enjoy media attention, they actually feel the opposite? One can well imagine how desolate their lives would become if they began to shun the paparazzi in truth. They really have so little to do in life .... other than snatching the taxpayers' money of course.

Harry's so-called mission on the front lines of Afghanistan will provide enough 'food' for gossip to the paparazzi to keep trashing the tabloids for the next 2 years at least. "The Red-Haired Soldier Prince," "Harry on the Front line,""The Prince in Helmand" and all that sort of sensational stuff for money. And Harry would welcome it as a means of giving a boost to his charisma (whatever that is) and mustering some sympathy as 'a patriot' for his so-called safety. It's shameful that one of the poorest countries in the world that's been ravaged by war for over quarter of a century is now being used for amusing and entertaining the Brit public with their cheap royal toys. Haven't these blighters have lived their high lives on the taxpayers' charity for long enough? It's time for the parasites of Buckingham Palace to look for jobs at MacDonalds or Starbucks, even if it's for $12/hour .... for that's the only kind of work they're qualified to do in today's competitive market. Unless some generous employer decides not to choose his employees on their merits. That reminds me of the story of Paul Wolfowitz and Shah Riza Wink lol! Unfortunately the Queen is too old to play Shah Riza's trick any longer. But probably a few other 'royal' females might give it a try.

Somebody's obviously trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.  The 'chronicles' quoted Harry Windsor saying that he went to Afghanistan to "serve my country."  Imperialism as a characteristic dies hard. This was a combination of imperialism and discreet theatrics. Poor Harry's greed for still more paparazzi limelight made him decide to create his own little 'Broadway' performance in Afghanistan, looking like the true 'dirty Harry' ... wearing the soldiers' uniform, patrolling on foot the dirt roads in the Afghan villages in combat gear, firing a machine gun and washing his (smelly) socks with the TV camera rolling with him so that these pictures could be shown when the game was over. I guess, 2 months in Helmand was enough to make his butt-cheeks quiver. It was time to say that the media had located him and march back home.

By the way, there are no direct reports that have spelt out the immediate circumstances on how Harry was 'discovered' by the media while serving in Afghanistan. That too is weird.

However, I'm sure the 'Prince' has had his fill of his Hollywood mania. And now ......... you go boy!
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

N. Truth Seeker
Quiet guy technology nerd | TEAM MUSLIM VILLA
Hero Member
Posts: 2443

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2008, 10:09:03 pm »

'Great' Britain is ungreatly trying to blow smoke up the peoples' ass.

and wait, I thought the old Windsor lady was paying some bit of tax since the last few years, no?

what's the level of their popularity in modern UK?  would anyone care of know much?
Report Spam   Logged

TEAM MV Founder
Hero Member
Posts: 4793

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2008, 03:17:54 am »

LOL! interesting thread.

A news story also said that Harry's family thought it was a good idea to send him to Afghanistan to distract him from his waywardness at home. So that was straight from the horse's mouth. Afghanistan is a serious issue, but the royals can only look upon it as a sporty distraction.

It was once being said in the mid 1990s that Queen Elizabeth II agreed to pay some tax on her private income. But there was no real follow-up of that story. It's not found anywhere on the web either. The obvious conclusion is that she agreed then disagreed and the matter was shut. Or, she might have agreed to pay just a symbolic amount that would not even be enough if paid as tax for her monthly grooming allowance, let alone her annual grooming allowance which is anything but peanuts for the British House of Commons. And let alone all those umpteens of allowances paid to all royals on the government's 'payroll for no work.'

The Fabian Society in Britain (a left-wing organization) has often proposed radical changes in the monarchy. In 2003, in an article on BBC online, it was suggested that Queen should no longer be the head of the Church of England. Further, the article read .. "The centuries-old ban on a Catholic monarch should also be lifted, the Fabian Society report recommends, and the principle that sons have precedence over daughters in succeeding the throne should also be scrapped. Although the document stops short of recommending abolition of the monarchy, it suggests the royals should pay inheritance tax."

It seems to me that many Brits support the monarchy, though the ones who're against it are no less in number. It looks 50/50 to me. A couple of generations later it could become a very different story. By that time those against the monarchy might be much more. At present, the traditional image of the Queen makes many Britons feel that monarchy is the history of their country which should continue being preserved. At the same time, they also admit that monarchy would be more popular if no public money was involved. A person responding to the Fabian Society's proposal wrote on the BBC website "the cost needs to be put in perspective. In reality the total yearly expenditure is likely to be in the region of a few minutes of one of Mr Blair's wars, or a squadron of Tornados plus spares. I know where I would prefer the money to be spent." So .. the money spent on the royals by the government looks small only when it's compared with expenses of wars. That itself proves that the royals are pricey people. Several other replies were interesting. I quote a few as under who were against the monarchy. Almost just as many were for it, but I haven't quoted those.

1) "I see the fact that the Queen as head of state in the Commonwealth countries to be a joke."

2) "What does the royal family do, exactly? Not much from where I'm sitting. I understand they get a good hourly rate, though."

3) "We need the monarchy but it needs reform, too many unemployed hangers on living it up on the taxpayer. The monarch and their direct heirs i.e. Charles and William should be the only ones we are supporting and providing privileges to. The rest should be stripped of their titles and earn their keep like the rest of us. There is absolutely no appreciation, or for that matter respect, of the advantages available to them."

4) "It doesn't need reforming, it needs abandoning. This outdated idea has run its course and has little relevance to anybody under the age of fifty."

5) "The Queen should be more accountable, and pay taxes like the rest of us. We should modernise the monarchy, and involve them in more aspects of normal life."

6) "The monarchy is an outdated and outmoded institution that has no place in modern day society. It should be abolished."

7) "It's time that leadership of this country was granted by the people, not inherited from one's ancestors. We should have a republic, and if people want to vote for Elizabeth Windsor as president, good for them."

8) "Although it is encouraging to have some intelligent debate on the subject, it must be time for a referendum on the future of the monarchy. The British public need to express their views on this important matter!"

9) "Absolutely. When Queen Elizabeth's reign comes to an end, let's call a halt to the whole circus. We went to war in Iraq to bring democracy, can we have some here please; because I don't remember voting for the Queen to be head of state."

10) "I agree with all the Fabian Society's conclusions but it doesn't go far enough. The monarchy should be scrapped altogether. The argument that it does no harm is false. It is an insidious institution which holds back the creation of a culture based on merit, initiative and enterprise. It cements privilege and power to a few based on the accident of birth. The UK will never be a mature, forward-looking democracy while the monarchy survives."

11) "Hopefully we will one day be a society mature enough not to need some unelected figurehead to whom we can grovel. I accept that the royals perform some useful function as a tourist attraction, but let us keep them as that, not heads of state or church. We don't give political power to pearly kings and queens or Morris dancers so let's remove it from this group of quaint anachronisms and let them concentrate on waving to the tourists and opening things."

12) "It is odd, I think, that in the 21st century we are still venerating a family simply for having been born into the position they have. The values of good citizenship, reward of merit etc. are necessarily undermined in a society where such unearned privilege is accorded such dubious respect."

13) "The only 'arguments' for retaining them are lame economics and weak concessions to bourgeoisie tradition and historical vanity. The monarch's role as head of the church was invented to facilitate divorce for heaven's sake. Tax them. Strip them of their inherited titles. Let us elect them in if we want them. Reject them if we don't. They have done not a single thing to earn my respect. It is time for a Ceremonial Monarch Elect."

14) "I agree with the proposals. The current institutionalisation of sexism and religious bigotry should be swept away, as should any deals where this super-rich family avoid inheritance tax. If they do public work they should be recompensed accordingly, but their vast private wealth should be subject to the same taxes as all the rest of us put up with."

15) "Why have a monarchy at all? A modern democratic process has no need for a monarchy. An elected president should be the way forward, so anyone can aspire to be 'head of state' rather than it being retained for a single family. The same laws on tax should be applied to every UK citizen. They should have the same rights and privileges that every UK citizen enjoys. I think the Queen should no longer be head of the Church of England and I don't think that a Prime Minister should choose its leaders either. I for one do not think that the Fabian society's proposals go far enough, but they are a step in the right direction."

16) "The monarchy should be wound down some and with it the coverage it receives. It's torture watching the 'news' and having to hear that it is Prince William's cat's birthday or that the Queen stubbed her toe. It's almost as mundane as Big Brother."

17) "I think the monarchy is an outdated, pointless institution that will die off once the current generation of pensioners pass away. None of my generation(early twenties) are the slightest bit interested. They should sell the properties, planes, trains, cars and give the money to charity."

18) "Yes the proposals should be implemented. In addition the monarchy should also be scaled down to the Monarch, the heir and the immediate descendent. Get rid of the other expensive leeches who will never reign - 20th, 51st, 290th in line to the throne? Get real!"

19) "Scrap the lot of them. In a time when we are debating who should get further education and whether positive discrimination works, the resounding answer is to reward ability. The monarchy is a bastion for getting things (money and power) without ability or effort. End it all now!"

20) "Who are the monarchy? The last article I read, said that Prince Charles has a man to squeeze his toothpaste and lay out his ties! The monarchy is a total waste of space, and an insult to ordinary working people. Prince Edward, in real life, would be on the dole."

21) "I think we should farm out the minor royals to other Commonwealth countries. Why have Prince Edward standing idle when he can be opening supermarkets in New Zealand...."

Well .. if people spoke this way about the monarchy 300 years ago, they would all be sent to The Tower, never to return to their families. This is just about the only improvement I can see the monarchy has made in the modern days.
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Scammers & spammers will be reported | If you borrow MV contents you must mention our link with hypertext | MV Team is not responsible for comments by members or guests.
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy