swampthing. I'm not a royalist particularly. I just think a lot of people dont know the full facts. Did you know that the entire cost of the Royal Family, and all the staff, palaces, cars, bills, everything (right down to the last paperclip) costs the same PER YEAR are the Welfare State costs every NINE MINUTES (fact!). You could have a tiny increase in the cost of the Welfare State, so slight that it wouldn't even be reported - but that increase would be more than the entire cost of the Royals and everything that goes with them for a year. Also, Prince Charles doesn't cost a penny and actually pays more than ?1m a year in tax personally. He owns lots of land and property as the owner of the title of The Duchy Of Cornwall. The heir to the throne has this, and if and when he becomes King, William will get this and he will cost the taxpayer nothing and pay a fortune in tax aswell.
Next point. The IRA will never be back in Northern Ireland. They gave up all their weapons in 2005, because the Irish Americans - led by Senator Ted Kennedy - demanded it. The patience of Irish America finally ran out following the Northern Bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney. Sinn Fein politicans have all said "the war is totally over" - numerous times over the last 4 years. What you may be referring to are the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. They are very small groups with little support.
Is it more about Joanna Lumley than the Ghuerka's?
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
-
JonnyHungwell
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Is it more about Joanna Lumley than the Ghuerka's?
I see her as an arrogant, ego inflated, old bitch - with a fishwife. Although I gather some people like her! Single issue lobyists are usually ass wipes.
Re: Is it more about Joanna Lumley than the Ghuerka's?
The sad reality is Max that in order to achieve most success on subjects like this you need not just overwhelming public support but a media focused direction.
Celeb's with the backing of 'their friends' in the media will always achieve more because it's the nature of how things are done.
Anyone of us can create a campaign and it could be on the most worthwhile subject but unless the media are interested it will mainly fall on deaf ears.
If we then ran the same campaign with a celeb fronting it the media becomes interested and suddenly doors once shut start to open.
It's the reason why the priority for most charities is to look for a good celeb to front any campaigns they do.
Celeb's with the backing of 'their friends' in the media will always achieve more because it's the nature of how things are done.
Anyone of us can create a campaign and it could be on the most worthwhile subject but unless the media are interested it will mainly fall on deaf ears.
If we then ran the same campaign with a celeb fronting it the media becomes interested and suddenly doors once shut start to open.
It's the reason why the priority for most charities is to look for a good celeb to front any campaigns they do.
Re: Is it more about Joanna Lumley than the Ghuerka's?
JonnyHungwell wrote:
> I see her as an arrogant, ego inflated, old bitch - with a
> fishwife. Although I gather some people like her! Single issue
> lobyists are usually ass wipes.
That's a shame, she speaks highly of you.
Joanna Lumley is involved because her dad was a Gurkha officer in the war, he fought with them through Burma, and I'm very proud of her for not turning her back on them when they needed help.
In truth, the Gurkhas are an historical anomaly, citizens of Nepal who serve in the British army with the agreement of their government. It all dates back to the Indian Raj, and if we were being logical we would not have had Gurkha regiments in the British army after 1947, because before then they had actually been part of the Indian army, and some Gurkha regiments still serve in the Indian army. However, it was convenient for Britain to keep Gurkhas to help police the empire east of Suez, which finally came to an end in 1997. But the fact is that Gurkhas have been serving in the British army since Indian independence in 1947, and it seems perverse that they should have fewer rights than other foreign nationals who serve in the British army. The courts agreed, and that's why the government has now caved in, it wasn't to do with the goodness of their heart.
> I see her as an arrogant, ego inflated, old bitch - with a
> fishwife. Although I gather some people like her! Single issue
> lobyists are usually ass wipes.
That's a shame, she speaks highly of you.
Joanna Lumley is involved because her dad was a Gurkha officer in the war, he fought with them through Burma, and I'm very proud of her for not turning her back on them when they needed help.
In truth, the Gurkhas are an historical anomaly, citizens of Nepal who serve in the British army with the agreement of their government. It all dates back to the Indian Raj, and if we were being logical we would not have had Gurkha regiments in the British army after 1947, because before then they had actually been part of the Indian army, and some Gurkha regiments still serve in the Indian army. However, it was convenient for Britain to keep Gurkhas to help police the empire east of Suez, which finally came to an end in 1997. But the fact is that Gurkhas have been serving in the British army since Indian independence in 1947, and it seems perverse that they should have fewer rights than other foreign nationals who serve in the British army. The courts agreed, and that's why the government has now caved in, it wasn't to do with the goodness of their heart.
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Is it more about Joanna Lumley than the Ghuerka's?
Robches, I dont think anyone has an issue with what she was doing. It is very noble. We all think highly of the Ghueka's. My gripe is how she seems to demand to be centre-stage in the whole thing when in reality THEY should be centre-stage. Why are there not long interviews of THEM rejoicing, shown on the TV news, why is it all about Joanna Lumley rejoicng, and Joanna Lumley's feelings about it all?!!