Poll: Who will end up paying the bill

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Hextor View Post
    Make her clean rooms for that bill. How many lifetimes of such work will suffice?
    Yes - i bet the diplomatic immunity doesnt cover that...

  2. #42
    Happens all the time, I have a relative in the repo business. You wouldn't believe how many 200k+ cars are repo'd from the driveways of $20 mill houses.

    Deadbeats come in all shapes and forms.
    Apply blizzards model to any other subscription service,you'd be outraged:
    Netflix adds no new movies for a year, you click a new movie, there's a $5 fee.
    You're in an accident, click your onstar button, but there's an addition $20 fee for them to help.
    You turn on your tv only to find all you get are the infomercial channels. Every other show is pay per view.
    See how dumb that model is?

  3. #43
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Hextor View Post
    Make her clean rooms for that bill. How many lifetimes of such work will suffice?
    Just needs another marriage or two and she'll be fine.

  4. #44
    Deleted
    couldn't they have charged her once a month or something like that instead...?

  5. #45
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Furypie View Post
    couldn't they have charged her once a month or something like that instead...?
    It's not like she doesn't have the money to pay it... She just doesn't want to.

  6. #46
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    Im pretty sure the shot fired from the Libyan embassy that killed an english policeofficer was one of the reasons that Thatcher supported Reagan in bombing Libya
    A better prime minister would have dispatched the Royal Navy the next morning. What ever happened to "An attack against a soldier of the King is an attack against the King himself"? When did that become "An attack against a soldier of the King means we'll look the other way while somebody else beats you up for an unrelated incident"?

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    A better prime minister would have dispatched the Royal Navy the next morning. What ever happened to "An attack against a soldier of the King is an attack against the King himself"? When did that become "An attack against a soldier of the King means we'll look the other way while somebody else beats you up for an unrelated incident"?
    Well - it was a queen for one thing.

    I think its because its a bit overkill to hold one person - who was never identified - responsible for a whole country and then start a war over it.

    I wonder about the legality though - because they do not have diplomatic immunity on the embassy, its Libyan soil in England, and that is where the shot was fired from but the police officer died on the outside on British soil.

    A conundrum indeed.

  8. #48
    Deleted
    It's about time that those in positions of prominence stopped using idiotic tactics to walk away unscathed when they're blatantly in the wrong. Perhaps stripping her of ranks and titles would send a strong message? It's pretty scary that it's not possible to arrest someone just because of a title they hold.

  9. #49
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Taenathal View Post
    It's about time that those in positions of prominence stopped using idiotic tactics to walk away unscathed when they're blatantly in the wrong. Perhaps stripping her of ranks and titles would send a strong message? It's pretty scary that it's not possible to arrest someone just because of a title they hold.
    Its not because of a title that she holds... its because of diplomatic immunity. France could ignore her diplomatic immunity, sure, but it would undermine the entire purpose of having an embassy in each other's countries. I'm sure that if France arrested her, they would arrest one of France's officials just to send a message.

  10. #50
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    Well - it was a queen for one thing.

    I think its because its a bit overkill to hold one person - who was never identified - responsible for a whole country and then start a war over it.

    I wonder about the legality though - because they do not have diplomatic immunity on the embassy, its Libyan soil in England, and that is where the shot was fired from but the police officer died on the outside on British soil.

    A conundrum indeed.

    Well, you can't build a global empire by not attacking people.

  11. #51
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by RawrPala View Post
    I don't think that was just her room, I believe paying for rooms for her 60 slaves added a fair chunk to that.

    Still average for a hotel room is what, 800, (and looking at the site of Shangri-la it seems like their most expensive offer at the moment is 1500 euros = 1,896.45 dollars) a night Can't imagine her 60 slaves getting a room for themselves, nor any nice rooms for that matter.

    But let's say each room cost about 2.528,82 USD each (2000 Euro)
    and let's say her servants get stuffed into a room with 5 of them and all her luggage gets spread around those 12 rooms

    2.528,82 x 13 = 32.874,66
    Let's say she eats for 1000 a day
    33.874,66

    IF she didn't spend money on anything else in the hotel (and we all know she spent plenty on more shit in the hotel)
    that would mean that she spent
    7.000.000 / 33.874,66 = 206,64 nights in the hotel

    What the fuck has she been buying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taenathal View Post
    It's about time that those in positions of prominence stopped using idiotic tactics to walk away unscathed when they're blatantly in the wrong. Perhaps stripping her of ranks and titles would send a strong message? It's pretty scary that it's not possible to arrest someone just because of a title they hold.
    It's a rich man's world ( 7.000.000 in a hotel?! and then trying to get out off it with a retarded strategy: ''Hey guys, let's just walk out with all my stuff and all at the same time, no way that they'll get on to us'')
    Last edited by mmocf1858d9362; 2012-06-10 at 11:33 PM.

  12. #52
    Field Marshal Mastashake15's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    67
    I can't believe the king or w/e they call him of Saudi Arabia hasn't done anything about this. What an embarrassment to the entire country.

  13. #53
    Deleted
    These saudi royals digusts me. Their monarchy is brutal and extremely undemocratic. There's even a death sentance on speaking against them. It doesn't surprise me that one of them would think themselves above others.

    ---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 02:47 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Taenathal View Post
    It's about time that those in positions of prominence stopped using idiotic tactics to walk away unscathed when they're blatantly in the wrong. Perhaps stripping her of ranks and titles would send a strong message? It's pretty scary that it's not possible to arrest someone just because of a title they hold.
    The saudi royals are untouchable. They rule with an iron fist and control every level of government in their country by keeping officials and leaders part of their family. Speaking up against them can be punishable by death. Women have no rights what so ever, they're not even allowed to look a man in the eyes or shake hands.
    These scumbags just happen to control oil and no-one can thusly speak against them even outside of their country.

  14. #54
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Creamy Flames View Post
    These saudi royals digusts me. Their monarchy is brutal and extremely undemocratic. There's even a death sentance on speaking against them. It doesn't surprise me that one of them would think themselves above others.[COLOR="red"]

    The saudi royals are untouchable. They rule with an iron fist and control every level of government in their country by keeping officials and leaders part of their family. Speaking up against them can be punishable by death. Women have no rights what so ever, they're not even allowed to look a man in the eyes or shake hands.
    These scumbags just happen to control oil and no-one can thusly speak against them even outside of their country.
    That all may be true.. but on the other hand..... France has kind of taken the lead in terms of illegal nuclear weapons testing.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    The hotel should be footing the bill - they have the right to deny service to anyone and know that diplomats need not adhere to the country's law - its their fuck up and they ought to deal with it. They should probably starting holding some collateral...
    Yeah, your logic is amazing. Would love having you having anything to do with laws.

  16. #56
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayro1 View Post
    Yeah, your logic is amazing. Would love having you having anything to do with laws.
    But with designated foreign diplomats, your laws don't apply to them. That's the essential problem here

  17. #57
    Legendary! Seezer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    DEEEEZ NuUuUuuTssss
    Posts
    6,010
    She's a saudi princess. Someone from her family will pay it. 7 million is shit for them.

  18. #58
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Kivimetsan View Post
    Yeah didn't you hear? Saudi Arabia is pretty much broke because there monopoly on oil production is slowly dying and Iran is taking over. Just look who is supplying Japan, India, China, Korea and many others oil... that right, Iran.
    Firstly, I'll start with saying that the Saudi royal family is no where near broke and 7 million dollars is like a change for them. That being said she was in the wrong but I doubt she or her family care (those saying that her family will pay her debt are way wrong).

  19. #59
    It's France so maybe things are different there, but wouldn't the hotel be able to sue her in a civil court for damages? It's not like they don't have assets within France to be seized.

  20. #60
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Creamy Flames View Post
    These saudi royals digusts me. Their monarchy is brutal and extremely undemocratic. There's even a death sentance on speaking against them. It doesn't surprise me that one of them would think themselves above others.

    ---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 02:47 AM ----------



    The saudi royals are untouchable. They rule with an iron fist and control every level of government in their country by keeping officials and leaders part of their family. Speaking up against them can be punishable by death. Women have no rights what so ever, they're not even allowed to look a man in the eyes or shake hands.
    These scumbags just happen to control oil and no-one can thusly speak against them even outside of their country.
    I agree with the first part. However, the part about women is kind of untrue because in Islam (which is the religion practised in SA), it doesn't matter which gender perform the act (AKA shaking hands) it is forbidden for any man/woman to shake the hand of a stranger. Also, there is no law (religious or domestic) which forbids a woman from looking at man's eyes and your information about it is kinda off.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •