Prince Philip asks women: 'Who do you sponge off?'

Some of his other gaffes are hilarious.

He told a World Wildlife Fund meeting that "if it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how many people on here will still be working at age 94?
And yes, it is work, I wouldn't like to do what he and The Queen do.

Also if you read the story the question has been taken out of context from the whole of the conversation which was done in a jovial manner.
 
EddScott said:
Some of his other gaffes are hilarious.
Click to expand...

and whats snot true 'er?
Like this one and anyone who has been to India and see their wiring quite apart from cutting/ clamping bulldog clips into the distribution system bypassing metering etc etc!

"During a walkabout at an Edinburgh electronics factory, Prince Philip remarked that a fusebox bursting with wires looked "as if it was put in by an Indian". His remark prompted immediate condemnation".
 
The whole tourism thing has been rebuffed many times, the figures don't account for security which costs loads, if we didn't have these spongers we wouldn't pay so much for their security and quite frankly who cares if they get assassinated, not me!
 
MrMoonX said:
The whole tourism thing has been rebuffed many times, the figures don't account for security which costs loads, if we didn't have these spongers we wouldn't pay so much for their security and quite frankly who cares if they get assassinated, not me!
Click to expand...



Still have to psi for all the buildings security
 
MrMoonX said:
The whole tourism thing has been rebuffed many times,
Click to expand...

1) No it hasn't. Saying that it's not true isn't rebuffing it.
2) As has already been stated, your position is wrong even if tourism is completely ignored.

the figures don't account for security which costs loads, if we didn't have these spongers we wouldn't pay so much for their security
Click to expand...

No, we'd have to pay more for security for the larger number of people who would replace them. Presidents require security for life, so the country ends up paying for multiple sets of security. Unless you're thinking of having a President for life position or leaving them unprotected after they leave office.

You still haven't explained why getting back far less money than you give is sponging. You know very well that's what the Queen does.

and quite frankly who cares if they get assassinated, not me!
Click to expand...

Obviously. But that's irrelevant. We're talking about money here and you're simply wrong.
 
dirtybeatfreak said:
I am very much pro royalty, but even I will say that the palaces etc would still make lots of tourism money without them there.
Click to expand...

Not as much money and less over time. A palace is a tourist attraction. A palace with a bona fide monarch in it (even if they aren't there all the time) is a bigger tourist attraction. McDonalds could build palaces tomorrow, but they wouldn't be much of a tourist attraction.

They do make us a lot of money though and their diplomatic influences have a lot more weight than people want to admit.
Click to expand...

And more reliably, since they're not temporary. There's value in stability, especially in diplomacy.
 
Dimple said:
I wonder how many people on here will still be working at age 94?
Click to expand...

If my job was as easy and profitable as theirs, I'd be working until the day I died. Imagine having total job security with a millionaire lifestyle without actually needing to earn a penny of it. Where do I sign up?

Angilion said:
Presidents require security for life
Click to expand...

Since when? Prime ministers don't; I can't see why presidents would. Even if they did, replacing a bunch of royals with a single president would save a lot in security costs since the royals get security for life anyway!
 
Evangelion said:
If my job was as easy and profitable as theirs, I'd be working until the day I died. Imagine having total job security with a millionaire lifestyle without actually needing to earn a penny of it. Where do I sign up?
Click to expand...

Simple - you just have to pay £285M a year to the Treasury in exchange for getting £43M of it back to cover expenses.

I don't see that as being profitable. Personally, I'd just keep the money and be richer and have an easier life without any work.

If you're arguing against inherited wealth, that's a completely different issue.

Since when? Prime ministers don't; I can't see why presidents would.
Click to expand...

A head of state tends to be a bigger target for killers and they do often get official security after they leave office. In the USA, for example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-restores-lifetime-secret-service-for-former-presidents/


Even if they did, replacing a bunch of royals with a single president would save a lot in security costs since the royals get security for life anyway!
Click to expand...

That would be true only if every president died in office or was killed when they left office. Which would make it rather hard to find people to take the position.
 
He says the things most people want to do in a light-hearted and can't because of PC muppets like the chap I am now going to quote. It's ok for him to say the following though - I wonder which one is far worse ...

MrMoonX said:
and quite frankly who cares if they get assassinated, not me!
Click to expand...

I care if people are killed for no good reason. And so should you if you aren't a complete ****. :rolleyes:
 
Diddums said:
He's brilliant. He's as crass, racist and sexist as Hitler was jewophobic and he never fails to deliver. Anyone who gets offended by him should probably get out more. As long as he sticks to stereotypical comments, he's a-ok in my book. The rest of the royals are as exciting as lukewarm custard.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's comedy gold. Who else can get away with these tid bit gems live and in public
 
marmalade said:
"During a walkabout at an Edinburgh electronics factory, Prince Philip remarked that a fusebox bursting with wires looked "as if it was put in by an Indian". His remark prompted immediate condemnation".
Click to expand...

I remember that, he actually meant to say cowboy and not their Red Indian enemies.

Evangelion said:
If my job was as easy and profitable as theirs, I'd be working until the day I died.
Click to expand...

"It's 3am, time to get up and get ready. You're off to Hull today to visit a factory that makes cases for phones and then on to a Women's Institute"
Evangelion - "Oh FFS, not again".
 
RoboCod said:
MrMoon showing what a lovely chap he is as usual.
Click to expand...

Even more shocking when you think such a poisonous person is a social worker, but thinking back on it most of the people studying for social work whilst I was at uni had serious problems.
 
Bear said:
Even more shocking when you think such a poisonous person is a social worker, but thinking back on it most of the people studying for social work whilst I was at uni had serious problems.
Click to expand...

OT I know a few and one in particular buys cocaine from people she visits for her job.
 
Angilion said:
As you well know, the country makes a tidy net profit from the royal family. That's guaranteed because the money paid to the royal family (most of which goes on expenses that would still occur in a republic anyway) is 15% of the 100% supertax the Queen pays on a big chunk of her income. If you give me £100 and I give you £15 of it back, are you sponging off me?

Or are you advocating that inheritance be banned or at least capped at some level? For all people, obviously, since you're describing inheriting wealth as being a sponger.

That's ignoring royalty-related tourism. Which shouldn't be ignored, since it's very real and brings in boatloads of money. Tourists don't go to see Buckingham Palace because it's pretty.

In any case, becoming a republic would obviously be more expensive because we'd have to pay a huge salary to the new head of state and we'd incur significantly higher expenses because we'd had to provide security to every living head of state and we'd be getting a new one every few years. We could end up with a dozen living ex-presidents each of whom requires a high level of security for life. All that in addition to the same expenses we have now. Diplomatic costs, building maintainance, transport costs, etc. If the head of state from another country comes for a visit, we can hardly put them up in a Premier Inn and give them a bus pass for transport (although it would be funny to see the response to that proposal).

I've joked that I'm going to stand for election to the city council with my election campaign being a promise to waste people's tax money on beer and strippers, because then people will vote for me on the basis that I won't waste it as badly as the current lot have done. People laugh because it has some truth in it. Maybe politicians aren't the biggest spongers, but many of them must be well up on the list.
Click to expand...

I vote for of a Republic.
its not the family that brings in the money its the building and properties such a jewels etc..
 
Dimple said:
I wonder how many people on here will still be working at age 94?
And yes, it is work, I wouldn't like to do what he and The Queen do.

Also if you read the story the question has been taken out of context from the whole of the conversation which was done in a jovial manner.
Click to expand...

Thats not work going to visit someone for half a day, work is getting up everyday traveling to a place fighting thru people traffic finishing late getting home cooking your food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom