Queen Elizabeth passes away

[jonnysensible]

You cannot go around calling people paedophiles and rapists when they have not been convicted of those offences.

Virginia Giuffre did and he paid her 12 million to stop saying it.

Jimmy Saville never got convicted either did he.

[Endus]

No not that either, he has been convicted of nothing. To say otherwise is defamatory, libellous and malicious communications. Extremely serious offences. You cannot go around calling people paedophiles and rapists when they have not been convicted of those offences.

I am surprised magic find has allowed those posts to stand tbh. I hope no one reports them to the police...

It's only defamation if there isn't good reasons to believe it to be true. And a lack of a criminal conviction does not contradict that.

And given all this shit;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince...pstein_Scandal

There's plenty of smoke filling the air around Andrew for people to state his pants are on fire. Calling that "defamation" is outright intentional dishonesty.

[Forogil]

It's only defamation if there isn't good reasons to believe it to be true. And a lack of a criminal conviction does not contradict that.

Such legal matters depend on the jurisdiction.
The old English libel law had a reputation for stifling free speech, so badly that the US made a law against it. Lance Armstrong allegedly used it to quash those doping-allegations, and some claim stories about Jimmy Saville weren't published due to it.

And even though it was replaced in England it wasn't in N. Ireland. It is currently somewhat restricted due to ECHR rulings - but I wouldn't be surprised if dribbles want to exit that as well.

[imoncrack]

I'm sure there's a lot of you that didn't believe what Michael Jackson was accused of but the FBI did.

[Northern Goblin]

charlie boys on tour on a pissup now, i assume this is all tax payer funded and not out of the 28billion he owns.

Probably comes out the Sovereign Grant, which is usually used to pay for such things.

Which is a percentage of the Crown Estates to which they otherwise give up the majority revenue of to the Treasury. Let's not pretend being allowed to keep 15% of your earnings on land you own is somehow paid by the taxpayer.

The taxpayer does foot the bill for certain things though, security at large public events, such as the Queen's funeral. However the tourism brought in from it nets the treasury far more than it costs. While they're antiquated and in dire need of serious modernisation, the monarchy is a cracking little investment and return for the British government.

[Draco-Onis]

Probably comes out the Sovereign Grant, which is usually used to pay for such things.

Which is a percentage of the Crown Estates to which they otherwise give up the majority revenue of to the Treasury. Let's not pretend being allowed to keep 15% of your earnings on land you own is somehow paid by the taxpayer.

The taxpayer does foot the bill for certain things though, security at large public events, such as the Queen's funeral. However the tourism brought in from it nets the treasury far more than it costs. While they're antiquated and in dire need of serious modernisation, the monarchy is a cracking little investment and return for the British government.

Actually the math on the net benefit of the royal family is unknown because they have gone through great lengths to hide their wealth and spending. However the tourism argument is the weakest one because people would still visit historical sites without the royal family. One could argue the revenue would be greater as without people living there you would have more tourism hours. It would be nice to know for sure but the firm or the British royal family is a very opaque institution.

[Kallisto]

Actually the math on the net benefit of the royal family is unknown because they have gone through great lengths to hide their wealth and spending. However the tourism argument is the weakest one because people would still visit historical sites without the royal family. One could argue the revenue would be greater as without people living there you would have more tourism hours. It would be nice to know for sure but the firm or the British royal family is a very opaque institution.

Without the Royal family those sites become private holdings of the Windsor family. If the government tries to make them public lands then you can bet every bit of money you have that the Windsor family is going to drag it through decades and decades of court procedings that likely will cost more than having a monarchy and for what? An appointed president who does the same things, sign the paper that gets put in front of them and smiles to the camera and to foreign dignitaries?

[jonnysensible]

Without the Royal family those sites become private holdings of the Windsor family. If the government tries to make them public lands then you can bet every bit of money you have that the Windsor family is going to drag it through decades and decades of court procedings that likely will cost more than having a monarchy and for what? An appointed president who does the same things, sign the paper that gets put in front of them and smiles to the camera and to foreign dignitaries?

do you believe in god? and do you believe in the divine right of kings?

[Draco-Onis]

Without the Royal family those sites become private holdings of the Windsor family. If the government tries to make them public lands then you can bet every bit of money you have that the Windsor family is going to drag it through decades and decades of court procedings that likely will cost more than having a monarchy and for what? An appointed president who does the same things, sign the paper that gets put in front of them and smiles to the camera and to foreign dignitaries?

Correct me if I am wrong, are you saying the UK government doesn't have the power to possess private property under the guise of national security, cultural significance and imminent domain? The Windsor family without the royal title are private citizens. I am also pretty that those properties are worth a lot more than whatever would be spent on lawyers.

[Northern Goblin]

Actually the math on the net benefit of the royal family is unknown because they have gone through great lengths to hide their wealth and spending. However the tourism argument is the weakest one because people would still visit historical sites without the royal family. One could argue the revenue would be greater as without people living there you would have more tourism hours. It would be nice to know for sure but the firm or the British royal family is a very opaque institution.

Tourism is more than just the ticket receipts on the door though. People who come to the country for royal events are an overall boost to the economy, they're staying at hotels, they're buying food and drink, as well as possibly souvenirs.

The cost of the Sovereign Grant isn't hidden, we know it every year and it's published. What isn't properly calculated is their economic value thanks to their effect on tourism, the value of Royal patronage and then the income gained by the Crown Estates (which is also published)

- - - Updated - - -

Correct me if I am wrong, are you saying the UK government doesn't have the power to possess private property under the guise of national security, cultural significance and imminent domain? The Windsor family without the royal title are private citizens. I am also pretty that those properties are worth a lot more than whatever would be spent on lawyers.

The Mountbatten-Windsors would tie the government up in a lengthy and expensive court case that would drag for years and cost the tax payer, with no guarantee of success, which is extra cost ontop of the loss from no longer benefitting from the Crown Estates. Private property seizure also would have a poor public perception, they seldom go down well.

[Draco-Onis]

Tourism is more than just the ticket receipts on the door though. People who come to the country for royal events are an overall boost to the economy, they're staying at hotels, they're buying food and drink, as well as possibly souvenirs.

The cost of the Sovereign Grant isn't hidden, we know it every year and it's published. What isn't properly calculated is their economic value thanks to their effect on tourism, the value of Royal patronage and then the income gained by the Crown Estates (which is also published)

France doesn't have a royal family they do more than the UK in tourism if I am not mistaken, the "tourism" argument is hard to quantify because people would still come to the UK without the royals and there would still be events to draw the in. The sovereign grant doesn't cover all the spending of the royal family including at this current time the cost of having your currency and other government affairs changed for the new monarch.

The Mountbatten-Windsors would tie the government up in a lengthy and expensive court case that would drag for years and cost the tax payer, with no guarantee of success, which is extra cost ontop of the loss from no longer benefitting from the Crown Estates. Private property seizure also would have a poor public perception, they seldom go down well.

You just repeated the same thing without answering my question about UK laws, I mean you guys did something similar to the US with Russian olygarchs afterall.

[Northern Goblin]

France doesn't have a royal family they do more than the UK in tourism if I am not mistaken, the "tourism" argument is hard to quantify because people would still come to the UK without the royals and there would still be events to draw the in. The sovereign grant doesn't cover all the spending of the royal family including at this current time the cost of having your currency and other government affairs changed for the new monarch.

You were replying to my previous comment which was about specific events that concern the royals as a benefit to tourism. The funeral, as ghastly as this sounds, is a tourist attraction that has brought many people across the world to London, where they are spending money here, in the UK. That in itself is a boon to the economy. The coronation will do likewise.

As to the cost of changing coinage, the Royal Mint produces money all the time, they simply just stop producing coins and notes with the Queen's head on it and use the King's instead. They'll be phased out over several years, we aren't expected to stop using current money by a set date.

You just repeated the same thing without answering my question about UK laws, I mean you guys did something similar to the US with Russian olygarchs afterall.

The Oligarchs were sanctioned as an act of their endorsement of the Putin regime and its war in Ukraine, those who had their assets seized, were done so througj an investigation into money laundering via property.

Any planes or boats that were seized or impounded was due to the fact they broke the conditions of their sanction.

You couldn't do the same to the Mountbatten-Windsors.

[Endus]

You just repeated the same thing without answering my question about UK laws, I mean you guys did something similar to the US with Russian olygarchs afterall.

The problem is that the legal argument for seizing the Crown Estate into the government's ownership boils down to "because we want it" and "because fuck the Mountbatten-Windsors".

Those aren't legal arguments with any merit.

"But tourists visit those sites constantly and it generates a ton of revenue" you say? So does Disneyworld. Doesn't mean the government has any grounds to seize ownership of the park.

There's a legal argument to be made that the properties would be retained by the Crown Estate as a corporation, rather than reverting to private ownership, but the government doesn't own the Crown Estate in any way at all; the Windors own it in right of the Crown, and if you're abolishing the monarchy, that's a relationship that would need to be redefined. The simplest answer is that they'd own the corporation itself, and all its assets, as private property; it's a much bigger ask to have the government take possession.

While eminent domain is a thing that exists, it generally requires the government to have made good-faith offers. If a man's farm stands in the way of a new highway, you have to have offered reasonable market rates for the property before you get to just seize it. In this context, that would mean straight-up buying all the Crown Estate properties for their full value, tens of billions of dollars, that money going to the Windsors.

It would really help if you folks had a legal argument that did not fundamentally boil down to "because fuck 'em, that's why".

[Draco-Onis]

You were replying to my previous comment which was about specific events that concern the royals as a benefit to tourism. The funeral, as ghastly as this sounds, is a tourist attraction that has brought many people across the world to London, where they are spending money here, in the UK. That in itself is a boon to the economy. The coronation will do likewise.

They would have still come for the former queen of England death and my point is I haven't seen any figures solidly quantifying it they usually just give the whole pie of tourism to the royals implying they are the only reason people come to the UK.

The Oligarchs were sanctioned as an act of their endorsement of the Putin regime and its war in Ukraine, those who had their assets seized, were done so througj an investigation into money laundering via property.

Any planes or boats that were seized or impounded was due to the fact they broke the conditions of their sanction.

You couldn't do the same to the Mountbatten-Windsors.

The olygarchs used proxies with UK citizenship and rights which is why I made the comparison.

- - - Updated - - -

It would really help if you folks had a legal argument that did not fundamentally boil down to "because fuck 'em, that's why".

I believe my question was what is the law in the UK not sure what your rant is going on about. In the US everything from the trial which is property not person versus the US government and guilty until proven innocent changes how it plays out. Since you don't know either I will simply ignore this.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

4.1 billion are expected to watch this funeral.

[MCMLXXXII]

Really doubt that more than half the world's population will see it. Most of the western world is at work. Then there are parts of the world with very limited access to TV or internet.
Seems like a patriotic exaggeration to me. No doubt billions will see it but not as much as the moonlanding, the inauguration of Obama and Live Aid combined.

[hellhamster]

Yeah, 4.1 billion is not happening.

[Bakis]

The Bach piece now when her cask is carried out is killing my ears. The organist need a drug test as well as the bbc audio crew in charge of the audio collection of the organ.

The trumpets, bagpipe, choir all sounded fine but this organ is whats played during stress torture sessions ffs.

Loved to watch it though, its historical ceremony with elements, protocols, etiquette, rules some of them going back ages being carried out around an inside an almost millenium old cathedral.

As a history buffet its a treat.

[Flarelaine]

Really doubt that more than half the world's population will see it. Most of the western world is at work.

I am at work and watching the stream.

[Bakis]

4 billion doesn't seem too far fetched unless they literally mean live but in their own time of choosing. After all she was the most known person in the world by far.

I luckily had an unplanned power nap a bit after the first bible reading happened and woke up by the sound of trumpets.

Guess the bible is good for at least one thing, putting me to sleep.