Lets kill another Bear

[Onelife]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gly3l8y45o


If they have to wear those silly hats why don’t the use fake ones to cut down on the cost? Talking about cost, I see Charlie and Cam are off on another tax payers holiday

[Portsmouth]

My understanding is that the bearskins come from "legal and licensed hunting authorized in Canada. I don't know why they are still hunting these bears but apparently its still legal to hunt black bears in Canada for rugs, steaks , burgers even bird food ( bear tallow ) so the few hats by the kings guard are from legally killed bears. It would be better if the bears were allowed to wander free in the area where they live, but as they have been killed by hunters anyway then the fur is better used than dumped on a tip.
I didn't realize that it only costs $3800 for 6 nights to hunt bears & moose in Ontario. 5 star log cabin, 20ft boat. transport to and from baits etc etc

[Onelife]

Nevertheless, it is still an expensive folly for what these days amounts to little more than a photo opportunity…you could feed a family of four for 6 months for the price of one of those stupid hats.

The culling holiday does sounds very reasonable priced compared to the many thousands it will cost to send Charlie and his baggage on their all-expensive paid holiday.

Yogi, me, and his relatives are not amused.

[Ray B]

Oh dear OL, you just can not help yourself. Another cover story to take a pop at His Majesty King Charles111 and his Queen Consort Camilla.
Look, you will not be getting an invite to next year's round of garden parties, if you keep having a pop.

[oldbluefox]

I doubt His Majesty's tour will be much of a holiday, meeting people, saying the right thing wary that the cameras will be watching your every move and listening in on every conversation. Certainly not a holiday whichever way you dress it.
I wonder how many of those who are critical of the wearing of fur themselves are carnivores, wear leather shoes and belts and whose wives carry leather handbags. I imagine those 'busbies ' although expensive will last a good many years. Back to front baseball caps just wouldn't look the same.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I see Charlie and Cam are off on another tax payers holiday

In the same sense that any holiday taken by a Civil Servant, Teacher, Doctor, Nurse or Dustman is funded by the Tax Payer who pays their salary. Except of course these are not expected to work during their holidays.

[Onelife]

I see Charlie and Cam are off on another tax payers holiday

In the same sense that any holiday taken by a Civil Servant, Teacher, Doctor, Nurse or Dustman is funded by the Tax Payer who pays their salary. Except of course these are not expected to work during their holidays.

The difference being, those aforementioned work an average of 10 months of the year for their tax payer’s money. Charlie on the other hand works (if you can call it that) the equivalent of 4 months of the year…Cam struggles to do 8 weeks.

I know its not the done thing for your king and Cam to pay their own way but considering their vast wealth, estimated to be well over £600,000,000 one would have thought they could fund their own (we still want to be King and Queen, even though a growing proportion of our subjects don’t want us anymore) all expenses paid holidays. Now doubt they will be nipping up to Scotland on their return to acclimatise to the UK weather.

[Stephen]

I love’m and think they should be paid more……..especially from the rebels of Shropshire

[Onelife]

I love’m and think they should be paid more……..especially from the rebels of Shropshire

I’ve just rescinded my kind offer of Bed & Breakfast

[Stephen]

Thank gawed for that

[david63]

The difference being, those aforementioned work an average of 10 months of the year for their tax payer’s money. Charlie on the other hand works (if you can call it that) the equivalent of 4 months of the year…Cam struggles to do 8 weeks.

And how many of the aforementioned would take two days out of their holiday, after only arriving the previous day, to go back to work because the "job" demanded it of them? I am referring to the King taking two days out to meet the families of those murdered and seriously injured in Southport recently.

[oldbluefox]

The difference being, those aforementioned work an average of 10 months of the year for their tax payer’s money. Charlie on the other hand works (if you can call it that) the equivalent of 4 months of the year…Cam struggles to do 8 weeks.

"The British Royal Family undertook approximately 3,000 official engagements in the year ending March 2023, compared with 2,300 in the previous year. Although the British monarchy usually undertakes around 3,000 engagements, the number of these in 2020/21 was significantly lower due to the COVID-19 pandemic".
Not sure where OL gets his figures from but he is clearly way off the mark. Perhaps he got a nasty bang to the head when he was little...........

[Mervyn and Trish]

Never mind working ten months of the year, most people of the King's age retired years ago. He'll be working, as his mother was, until the day he dies. I wouldn't want to change places.

[Onelife]

The only bang of the head I can remember was when a kid made contact with a cricket bat…whilst it did knock me out, it hasn’t impaired my vision of a better way forward for our country.

It would be interesting to know how many of the 3,000 Royal engagements were conducted without any of the Royals having to leave their palaces and castles?

A majority of them I would suspect.

[towny44]

Keefie, why can't you accept that some of us are royalists and are happy to continue with the status quo for ever. Just as we have accepted that you are a republican and will never change your mind.

[Onelife]

Never mind working ten months of the year, most people of the King's age retired years ago. He'll be working, as his mother was, until the day he dies. I wouldn't want to change places.

I believe their motto is…hard work never killed anyone…but why take the chance.

Live long and prosper…

[Onelife]

Keefie, why can't you accept that some of us are royalists and are happy to continue with the status quo for ever. Just as we have accepted that you are a republican and will never change your mind.

Hi John, I do accept that you, along with all the other Royalists are steadfast in your admiration of all most things Royal…. this being the case I respect those opinions even though I think you are all trapped in a time warp where you can’t possibly conceive a head of state without having a crown on their head.

For me the hierarchal status of our Monarchy characterises the very worst of social mobility…King, Queen, Princes, Princesses, Peers, Knights. Dukes, Marquess, Earls, Viscounts, Barons…come on, we are living in the 21st century, so let me ask you this….do most of these titles truly represent the way forward? Do they deliver national pride to our country? are they the symbol of sound values? We need to take a long hard look at where this country is being taken, and in doing so step away from the insecurity of not wanting change.

Btw, I’m more than happy to have an honours list but let it be for those who deserve it, not as is many cases now where you have to be in the right circles to be awarded one.

[Stephen]

I’m with you there on the honours list, I got overlooked again this year.

[towny44]

Keefie you have said in the past that you would like to see the second chamber, or maybe even the HOC, to be populated with the best, brightest and most experienced minds in the UK.
Well that is partially what we have now, with experienced politicians ennobled when they retire, along with champions of industry, and there are even some of the nobility who have proved to be excellent businessmen. So with minor tweaks the upper chamber could provide you with part of what you desire.
As to the minor nobility, they concern me no more than the likes of the Beckhams, Jaggers or Stewarts. There will always be self made millionaires from every generation whose offspring will feel entitled through wealth, which does not concern me as they will, in the main, be paying way more tax than the average person and helping the Chancellor to fund all our social services.

[Ray B]

Keefie, why can't you accept that some of us are royalists and are happy to continue with the status quo for ever. Just as we have accepted that you are a republican and will never change your mind.

Hi John, I do accept that you, along with all the other Royalists are steadfast in your admiration of all most things Royal…. this being the case I respect those opinions even though I think you are all trapped in a time warp where you can’t possibly conceive a head of state without having a crown on their head.

Putin doesn't have a crown on his head. Oh, and his little fat mate in North Korea, Kim Jong il doesn't.

[oldbluefox]

So which one of these would Keefy like to have as President..............Putin, Kim Jong, Trump, Biden, Boris, Corbyn, Truss (so far having avoided this little conundrum )

Having made your choice which one will provide better stability for the nation than our monarchs have done over the ages?

[Onelife]

Hi Foxy…whatever makes you think I would choose any of them? Those you have mentioned are already dictators (in one form or another) or have dictatorial tendencies so I’m not sure where you are coming from with that one. I will however take a guess and presume you are implying that should we get rid of the freeloaders we will be left with a clone of those you mentioned?

I would like to think that the transition of replacing an unelected hereditary Monarchy with a head of state (president) would be more in keeping with what I believe this country needs… which is constitutional reform from the top to the bottom, this can only be achieved if we stop paying homage to those who have plundered this country for hundreds of years without one ounce of verified scrutiny.

As for who I would like to see as head of state then I would have to say someone like the late Tony Benn….and no I didn’t agree with many of his leftist opinions but he was a man who always wanted the best for his country.

From what I’ve seen thus far Keir Starmer could be another candidate when the inevitable happens

[Mervyn and Trish]

President Starmer? God help us. I was willing to give him a chance but so far all he's done is screw pensioners and appease his union chums. He needs to do a lot better.

[Onelife]

President Starmer? God help us. I was willing to give him a chance but so far all he's done is screw pensioners and appease his union chums. He needs to do a lot better.

At least he’s making some decisive decisions which at the end of the day is more than the Conservative party did in 13 years…. whether the books add up at the end of it is another matter.

The truth is Sir Merv, we couldn’t carry on with a dysfunctional rebel government.

[Mervyn and Trish]

This one's already got rebels. The only difference is Starmer has such a huge majority that he could propose putting all 70 year olds in front of a firing squad and get it through. I don't think he's actually made a single useful decision yet.