1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General News Police 'told to leave Queen's nuts'

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by MrAllMonday, Dec 12, 2013.

  1. MrAllMonday

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    ^ The Queen as she is a burden. The cops are a necessary evil.

    I actually like the police officers in general. Most are very nice to me.
     
  2. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    *creates a list of everyone supporting the police officers, finds their addresses, breaks into their houses, and eats their food without their permission*

    lets see how people like it.
     
  3. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    A reminder that food laid out in a national palace with servants (employed with public funds) who laid out the nuts (bought with the same public funds), being eaten by police (who not only are there to protect her, but are also payed with other people's money) has not caused any personal inconvenience to the Queen.
     
  4. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    it doesn't matter. if you don't like the system, that doesn't mean you get to break the law. buckingham palace is the property of the reigning monarch. That the monarchy gets a stipend is irrelevant.

    this is the exact same mentality that we see with homophobic bakers who say that to bake a wedding cake for a gay person is against their religious beliefs, so it can't be called discrimination.

    just because you don't like something, doesn't mean the laws can be ignored to suit your expression of your opinion.

    There is a term for that, and it is called 'anarchist'.
     
  5. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Eating nuts laid out while you're working is not an anarchist action (especially given that they were police). There's no law against eating something laid out in your workplace.

    Oh, and Buckingham Palace is 100% state property; it's under the care of the royal family. It's not a purely domestic household, and unless they were in her bedroom, I don't think it would be obviously the Queen's.

    The whole point of this is that the Queen is being ungrateful and pettish to people who protect her for the simple act of existing. This isn't a matter of law or of property, this is just an old aristocratic woman being pathetic over a simple matter that wasn't clarified.

    The mentality that you're allowed to eat something laid out in a public building while you're working on the protection of a senior figure is not in the slightest comparable to refusing services to same-sex couples on religious grounds.
     
  6. photoguy93

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,893
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Olaf
    So I have a job for you.

    I want you to walk to your local state office and demand entrance and ask for whatever food they have, and just see what happens. :slight_smile:

    I'm starting to wonder if maybe this thread should be sent to thread heaven.
     
  7. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    You are rather illinformed on alot of things relating to the monarchy.

    Firstly, the palace is the privately owned residence of the british monarch. it is not publicly owned. anything within the palace is the property of the queen, who is the reigning monarch. Therefore, it is wrong for the staff to be eating things laid out for the queen, and does constitute theft of her property.

    as for complaining about the tax payers paying for the monarchy, you are extremely illinformed about the economics of the monarchy. what you fail to recognize is the fact that for every pound that a british taxpayer spends, the monarchy itself brings in quite a bit through tourisem, and the markets that surround tourisem. people who are interested in the monarchy will feed into the tourist buisnesses that surround the various estates and palaces owned and opertated by the british monarchy. When there is a major event, from births to marriages to coronations and deaths, these bring in huge crowds, and also create a roaring trade in trinkets and souveniers. it was even said that the wedding of william and kate brought in such an economic boom to england that it was well over a billion dollars above the cost of the event itself.

    At the end of the day, the monarchy has proven quite a financial windfall for the british people, and when the queen opened buckingham to tours to help pay for the repairs to Windsor castle after the fire, she created a whole new source of revenue, and since the repairs have been completed, keeping buckingham open to tourists from time to time has only increased the tourist capacity that the monarchy itself can bring to help stimulate economic growth.

    The last figure I heard (which I admit was about 7-8 years ago) was that the stipend the queen gets is 20million pounds, a good portion which goes to keeping up the upkeep of the various properties, plus the various people who are employeed to upkeep them, work in them, and work as liasions with the public and the parlimentary system.

    but the reality is that the palace still is privately owned property.

    if you have a problem with the monarchy, fine. but if you can't get your facts straight, then you might want to find another outlet for your disdain of them.

    but laws are laws. it is a matter of princible. I had the same discussion with someone who was stealing peoples lunches at the college I went to. they tried to justify it using basically the same logic you were attempting to use. That person also was recently fired because of it, and now is complaining of having trouble finding a job.

    take what is not meant for you, and you broke the law. plain and simple.
     
  8. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Don't tell me what I'm ill-informed about. Don't give ironically poorly-informed drivel in a condescending tone to me, thanks.

    Buckingham Palace is state owned, and the revenue raised by the monarchy is negligible; of the top twenty tourist attractions, only one is a royal site. How much more would be gained if the state-owned royal residences were permanently open to the public, like Versailles? Tourism isn't bolstered by monarchy; you've basically written a copy of royal PR.

    The royal household expenditure is over forty million pounds annually, not twenty. Plus protection and expenditures relating to the function of the state events and the royal court. But those aren't the figures featured by the royal PR deparment.

    And the law is the law? They were just nuts, laid out in the open, and the police were evidently hungry. And given the ridiculous royal protocol (my mother knows a politician who had to read a 300 page handbook on etiquette concerning the Queen, for an hour-long visit), I hardly think the police would ask the Queen for some nuts; it's intimidating, pointless, and they were only nuts.
     
  9. MrAllMonday

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Naaaah. She left it out and the officers thought it was treats for people within the palace.

    The fat trollop should have put a sign saying "DO NOT TOUCH MA NUTS"....HAHAHAH

    So what if the monarchy brings money into the country. Let them bring money into the country. I don't want taxpayer money financing all this rubbish. They have enough money organise all these events and bring money into the country. In addition, no one truly knows the true wealth of the Queen so there. Besides any economic boom will not benefit the average British citizen.

    So you want to prosecute the police for eating nuts?
     
  10. Jameson

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York City
    This thread is kind of seriously ridiculous.

    "Queen Elizabeth angered at policeman eating her food."
    "WHAT A SELFISH COW! HOW DARE SHE GET ANGRY THAT POLICE OFFICERS EAT FOOD THAT WAS SET OUT FOR HER, IN HER APARTMENTS?"

    Seriously, calling her a cow is rude and calling her selfish and unsympathetic to British people is even more rude. She literally has no political or executive powers, so she really has no say in what happens to the British people. She has influence, of course, but influence can only go so far with the ministers that do have political or executive power.

    It's pretty obvious that there is really no point in this thread other than providing a weak justification for hating the monarchy.

    (Seriously though, everyone has their goddamn quirks and flaws, and getting stingy about a bowl of nuts in her own house being eaten maybe a quirk of the Queen, not the horrible, fatal flaw of being evil and selfish.)

    FINALLY, going on about her "OWNING 16 Kingdoms!!" literally has no foundation. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and numerous other countries have all achieved full independence within the last century and the only reason Elizabeth II is named as their queen is because of a personal union (Commonwealth of Nations, to be exact). Nothing more.