Gen Z wokies leave a right disgusting mess at the Reading Festival

[Crimson Dynamo]

Not very climate crisis of them?

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/28/12/74789531-12452503-Discarded_tents_and_piles_of_rubbish_spanned_the_l andscape_of_Li-a-12_1693221400171.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/28/13/74794439-12452557-image-a-18_1693224809801.jpg

https://twitter.com/AndyGreenley/status/1696140097123414237?s=20

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/28/13/74794427-12452557-image-a-22_1693224908086.jpg



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12452557/And-cleanup-Reading-Festival-site-left-sea-tents-litter-aftermath-music-event-revellers-make-way-home.html

[arista]

Typical LT

Youth of today,

Soon Labour are in power
but things may get worse

[Crimson Dynamo]

Soon Labour are in power
but things may get worse

a genuine chilling thought for this great island nation

[Glenn.]

I mean every picture of these gen z wokies, they seem to be carrying camping gear and tents.

[The Slim Reaper]

ONLY WOKE PEOPLE LIKE MUSIC

:laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I mean every picture of these gen z wokies, they seem to be carrying camping gear and tents.
on the way in

i mean is it that hard?

[Jordan.]

Outrageous. Gen X truly failed at parenting.

[Glenn.]

on the way in

i mean is it that hard?

So they daily fail printed pictures of them arriving whilst moaning they left the place in a state?

That logic is outstanding

[Oliver_W]

How do you know they're woke? How do you know they'd usually claim to worry about the environment?

[Oliver_W]

Regardless of what the attendees are or aren't, at least some festival-goers know how to behave:

https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5640&stc=1&d=1693346489

[Mystic Mock]

ONLY WOKE PEOPLE LIKE MUSIC

:laugh:

:joker:

Seriously though it's getting increasingly harder to like 2020's chart Music, some of it is still decent, but **** me for about 90% of it.

[user104658]

BREAKING NEWS: Mess left behind after music festival.

Scraping the barrel at this point surely...

:joker:

Seriously though it's getting increasingly harder to like 2020's chart Music, some of it is still decent, but **** me for about 90% of it.

Charts don't really mean much these days because of the way music is mostly consumed (streaming). The money for performers is in building a loyal fan base and doing merch/shows.

[user104658]

I mean look at the bloody mess those filthy WOKE Gen Z animals left behind at Woodstock in 1969! Absolutely no respect.

https://i.imgur.com/A7tNZ6O.png

[Crimson Dynamo]

BREAKING NEWS: Mess left behind after music festival.

Scraping the barrel at this point surely...



Charts don't really mean much these days because of the way music is mostly consumed (streaming). The money for performers is in building a loyal fan base and doing merch/shows.

or getting your tracks on things like Fifa PS5 games

[Cherie]

I mean look at the bloody mess those filthy WOKE Gen Z animals left behind at Woodstock in 1969! Absolutely no respect.

https://i.imgur.com/A7tNZ6O.png

surely you have missed the point, in 1969 there was little discussion on climate change and defo no protests, alot of these people leaving rubbish behind today whatever generation they are will be concerned about climate change, the sad fact is they want SOMEONE ELSE to do something about it and dont take any personal responsibility, some of them will be slow marching in London though and stopping people going about their business, but as long as they had a lovely time at a festival who cares

[Cherie]

Outrageous. Gen X truly failed at parenting.

always someone elses fault, must be great to be you

[Crimson Dynamo]

surely you have missed the point, in 1969 there was little discussion on climate change and defo no protests, alot of these people leaving rubbish behind today whatever generation they are will be concerned about climate change, the sad fact is they want SOMEONE ELSE to do something about it and dont take any personal responsibility, some of them will be slow marching in London though and stopping people going about their business, but as long as they had a lovely time at a festival who cares

Precisely, there is so much information available to them about being environmentally responsible

[smudgie]

I am sure the ticket price will cover the clean up.
Hopefully all those tents and sleeping bags can be given to people sleeping on the streets.

[Livia]

Thankfully we can be sure of one thing: when the missiles started flying the stabbings started, the tents were set alight and huge bonfires built, no one was wearing a sombrero.

[user104658]

surely you have missed the point, in 1969 there was little discussion on climate change and defo no protests, alot of these people leaving rubbish behind today whatever generation they are will be concerned about climate change, the sad fact is they want SOMEONE ELSE to do something about it and dont take any personal responsibility, some of them will be slow marching in London though and stopping people going about their business, but as long as they had a lovely time at a festival who cares

You have absolutely no idea if the people who left mess behind are the same people who campaign about climate change. The whole thing is borne of a complete delusion that everyone of a certain age has the same attitudes and beliefs. A narrative mostly pushed by online trends and surface appearances.

Here's the brief basic facts:

Just like in 1969, most "Gen Z's" (young people) don't give a stuff about climate change. They don't give a stuff about LGBTQ+. They are not "woke". Kids, teenagers and Uni students today are the same as we were when we were that age... and we were the same as our parents at the same age.

The idea that this messy scene is "ironic" because it was "Gen Z's" and "All Gen Z's complain about climate change!" is nothing more than a complete outrage-fantasy.

[Liam-]

Littering is disgusting, they should be ashamed, as should be the oldie royalists who left massive amounts of litter and general mess on the days they gathered around the streets of London to see the grifters

[user104658]

Precisely, there is so much information available to them about being environmentally responsible

Bull**** the people who left their filth behind at woodstock didn't care and were being selfish just the same as the people who left thei rmess behind at this festival. Imagine looking at past generations with such rose-tinted glasses that you'd claim they thought it was fine to not clean up after themselves, because there weren't any infomercials about recycling yet :facepalm:.

Young people will have fun, make a mess, and not care about the consequences. That has always been and will always be the case.

[Livia]

surely you have missed the point, in 1969 there was little discussion on climate change and defo no protests, alot of these people leaving rubbish behind today whatever generation they are will be concerned about climate change, the sad fact is they want SOMEONE ELSE to do something about it and dont take any personal responsibility, some of them will be slow marching in London though and stopping people going about their business, but as long as they had a lovely time at a festival who cares

It wouldn't be so laughable if the whole thing hadn't been organised like a woke joke. More interested in policing cultural appropriation than protecting people and policing the event. Same people organised Leeds festival... Nuff said.

[Livia]

Littering is disgusting, they should be ashamed, as should be the oldie royalists who left massive amounts of litter and general mess on the days they gathered around the streets of London to see the grifters

Grifters? No... Harry and Meghan weren't invited.

[arista]

Grifters? No... Harry and Meghan weren't invited.


Very True

[user104658]

Grifters? No... Harry and Meghan weren't invited.

That's a good point I suppose. The active Royals don't have to be grifters, sopping sycophants are too keen to serve up whatever they want on a golden platter :joker:.

"Freeloaders" would be a better word maybe. Spongers. Leeches. Parasites?

[arista]

I am sure the ticket price will cover the clean up.
Hopefully all those tents and sleeping bags can be given to people sleeping on the streets.


Yes it does pay all staff
at each event


Those tents are chucked
as they are no longer clean
all sorts of liquids are inside them

[Livia]

Yes it does pay all staff
at each event


Those tents are chucked
as they are no longer clean
all sorts of liquids are inside them

Give the tents to migrants and put our homeless in hotels. That would make more sense to me.

[Liam-]

That's a good point I suppose. The active Royals don't have to be grifters, sopping sycophants are too keen to serve up whatever they want on a golden platter :joker:.

"Freeloaders" would be a better word maybe. Spongers. Leeches. Parasites?

All correct terms, one could even describe them as societal cancer if they wish

[Oliver_W]

It wouldn't be so laughable if the whole thing hadn't been organised like a woke joke. More interested in policing cultural appropriation than protecting people and policing the event. Same people organised Leeds festival... Nuff said.

Like what?

[user104658]

Like what?

Like a woke joke.

[Livia]

Like what?

Huh?

[user104658]

Huh?

Like a woke joke, jeez.

[Livia]

Like a woke joke, jeez.

Everyone here is so stupid compared to you, right?

[user104658]

Give the tents to migrants

"We should have shanty towns for the brown people!" - TiBB, 2023.

[user104658]

Everyone here is so stupid compared to you, right?

Not everyone.

[Livia]

Nice try.... back to ignoring your self-absorbed nonsens.

[Cherie]

You have absolutely no idea if the people who left mess behind are the same people who campaign about climate change. The whole thing is borne of a complete delusion that everyone of a certain age has the same attitudes and beliefs. A narrative mostly pushed by online trends and surface appearances.

Here's the brief basic facts:

Just like in 1969, most "Gen Z's" (young people) don't give a stuff about climate change. They don't give a stuff about LGBTQ+. They are not "woke". Kids, teenagers and Uni students today are the same as we were when we were that age... and we were the same as our parents at the same age.


The idea that this messy scene is "ironic" because it was "Gen Z's" and "All Gen Z's complain about climate change!" is nothing more than a complete outrage-fantasy.

No I have no idea, no more than you have any idea that they were, but what I do know is that they will be aware of climate change environmental issues even if they live under rocks and can almost guarantee that some that attended will support slow marching etc, even if they dont do it themselves...

[Crimson Dynamo]

like what?

they banned the sale of sombreros

[user104658]

Nice try.... back to ignoring your self-absorbed nonsens.

https://media.tenor.com/h01u9286PDoAAAAC/next-week-ill-see-you-next-week.gif

[Livia]

Even the woke Guardian was appalled...

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/aug/29/reading-festival-violence-tent-burning

[user104658]

No I have no idea, no more than you have any idea that they were, but what I do know is that they will be aware of climate change environmental issues even if they live under rocks and can almost guarantee that some that attended will support slow marching etc, even if they dont do it themselves...

The point is that we have no idea how many of them left mess behind (it wont be all of them) and we have no idea how many support climate activism (it also won't be all of them). Sure there's likely to be some hypocrites and some overlap but taking a stab at how much those two groups overlap is complete guesswork.

Online hysterics would have us all believe that today's youngsters are all Greta Thunbergs, marching around with LGBTQ flags. 3 years of having a daughter in high school has confirmed that that's maybe 10% of teenagers and the rest are not any different to how we were in high school in the slightest. Literally exactly the same thoughts, attitudes and dramas that I saw in school 25 years ago. Gen Z as a homogenous group is an internet myth.

Now there is the unfortunate fact that some politicians and other influential people seem to be buying into that myth... but that's another discussion.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Greta wont like this

https://twitter.com/999bradders/status/1563939190575874048?s=20

[Jordan.]

always someone elses fault, must be great to be you

Like you think it's the kids fault not the generation who dragged them up? Maybe some attention and less sitting them in front of a computer screen wouldn't have turned them into the WOKE hypocritical menaces they are now :fist:

[Livia]

Like you think it's the kids fault not the generation who dragged them up? Maybe some attention and less sitting them in front of a computer screen wouldn't have turned them into the WOKE hypocritical menaces they are now :fist:

It pleases me no end that in twenty years or so... and that's not as long as you think... some young person will be saying all this ridiculous **** to you and hitting you with "steamed hams" jokes that moderators don't seem to notice. Think of me the first time this happens to you.

[Oliver_W]

Huh?
I was asking how they were combating so-called cultural appropriation.


they banned the sale of sombreros
Pathetic.

I hope people brought their own.

[user104658]

Think of me the first time this happens to you.

:joker: Between this and Sheriff on the other thread, this place is an absolute scream today.

[Livia]

I was asking how they were combating so-called cultural appropriation.



Pathetic.

I hope people brought their own.

Sorry Oliver, I see now... I think LT fielded that one for me.

[Livia]

:joker: Between this and Sheriff on the other thread, this place is an absolute scream today.

"I'm not hounding you, Livia".

[Jordan.]

EqyCoTD5iC0

[Cherie]

Like you think it's the kids fault not the generation who dragged them up? Maybe some attention and less sitting them in front of a computer screen wouldn't have turned them into the WOKE hypocritical menaces they are now :fist:

you shouldnt be so hard on yourself :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

"Clothing/garments/items that promote cultural appropriation"

was added to the Ban list :joker:

[Cherie]

It pleases me no end that in twenty years or so... and that's not as long as you think... some young person will be saying all this ridiculous **** to you and hitting you with "steamed hams" jokes that moderators don't seem to notice. Think of me the first time this happens to you.

:joker: Jordan will always be down with the kids though he cant be far off 30 by now, those years creep up as SB will attest

[Oliver_W]

"Clothing/garments/items that promote cultural appropriation"

was added to the Ban list :joker:

And what about things that promote The Force or Hogwarts or Power Rangers or Santa or Pennywise?


I'd wear my blond dreadlocks wig and no-one would stop me.

[Jordan.]

you shouldnt be so hard on yourself :laugh:

It's this mentality that created vile WOKE litter bugs. Take responsibility Cherie.

[Oliver_W]

People are responsible for their own actions :shrug:

[user104658]

"I'm not hounding you, Livia".

I'm sure we covered last time that posting responses on threads someone is posting on does not constitute "hounding". Perhaps didn't cover that I'm not taking on the victim-narrative for a second in terms of not responding either. You dish it out with a shovel, to do so and then curl up and say "I'm being attacked and hounded!" is ludicrous.

[Cherie]

It's this mentality that created vile WOKE litter bugs. Take responsibility Cherie.

Hate to break it to you but I birthed kids who weren't at the festival :worry:

My kids are absolute stars :love:

[Cherie]

People are responsible for their own actions :shrug:

no no if you go on a murdering rampage tomorrow its more than likely your parents fault:nono: nature v nurture, obvs Jordans parents have ALOT to answer for

[user104658]

no no if you go on a murdering rampage tomorrow it's more than likely your parents fault :nono:

I feel like you're being flippant here but this is actually 100% true :shrug:. #1 factor linking almost every serial killer in history is childhood trauma, sometimes extreme, usually involving a parent or primary caregiver.

More generally (just average folks, not murderers) - violent people tend to come from violent families.

[bots]

adults are responsible for their own actions, else no-one would ever be guilty of any crime

[Oliver_W]

I feel like you're being flippant here but this is actually 100% true :shrug:. #1 factor linking almost every serial killer in history is childhood trauma, sometimes extreme, usually involving a parent or primary caregiver.

More generally (just average folks, not murderers) - violent people tend to come from violent families.

Same with people who sexually abuse children - they're more likely than not to have been abused themselves.

But I'm not about to pathologise the behaviour of idiots who can't tidy up after themselves - I actually do care about the environment, but I don't think litterers are quite the same as murderers and rapists.

Being too lazy to pick up their stuff is entirely on them.

[Glenn.]

I'm sure we covered last time that posting responses on threads someone is posting on does not constitute "hounding". Perhaps didn't cover that I'm not taking on the victim-narrative for a second in terms of not responding either. You dish it out with a shovel, to do so and then curl up and say "I'm being attacked and hounded!" is ludicrous.

Oop

[Beso]

Outrageous. Gen X truly failed at parenting.

You have to like your kids to want to parent them.

[Mystic Mock]

BREAKING NEWS: Mess left behind after music festival.

Scraping the barrel at this point surely...



Charts don't really mean much these days because of the way music is mostly consumed (streaming). The money for performers is in building a loyal fan base and doing merch/shows.

Oh I get that.

I do miss the charts having a more competitive field to it though, with actual decent songs.

I know I'm going to sound old, but Spotify's streaming age killed the charts due to encouraging die hard fanbases to dominate, rather than what songs were the most popular.

I mean I've seen some singers have 15 songs in the charts at one time, and I honestly doubt that all 15 were good songs.

Imo physical sales and iTunes sales were the two best methods to encourage chart Music.

[Mystic Mock]

I was asking how they were combating so-called cultural appropriation.



Pathetic.

I hope people brought their own.

Random tangent.

The term Cultural Appropriation is abused so much nowadays imo, it's like people can't tell the difference between Cultural Appreciation and claiming that Kimono's are British (genuine Cultural Appropriation) it can be irritating when people can't tell the difference, regardless of what age group they're apart of.

I know that my post is a bit random, but I wanted to add my thoughts to the Cultural Appropriation stuff.

[Oliver_W]

Random tangent.

The term Cultural Appropriation is abused so much nowadays imo, it's like people can't tell the difference between Cultural Appreciation and claiming that Kimono's are British (genuine Cultural Appropriation) it can be irritating when people can't tell the difference, regardless of what age group they're apart of.

I know that my post is a bit random, but I wanted to add my thoughts to the Cultural Appropriation stuff.

It's all BS, to be frank.

It's one of those things about which only "terminally online weirdos" care.

I wore my blond dreads wig to Greenbelt Festival and got nothing but compliments. Even people who looked like they'd be what some might call "SJWs" or "woke" either spoke to me nicely/normally without seeming to notice, or said they liked them.

Of course, I don't know what happened out of my line of sight. Maybe people were shooting daggers at me or secretly photographing or filming me for their latest TikTok about evil Appropriaters. But I doubt it.

[user104658]

adults are responsible for their own actions, else no-one would ever be guilty of any crime

Responsible for yes but, as always, explanations are not excuses and we should never let a public "resistance to excuses being made" (because some people don't understand that explanations are not excuses) stop any endeavor to find explanations and causes.

We don't say "childhood trauma can create criminals" to excuse the ones that have already been created... We say it to hopefully stop it before it happens. Obviously a utopian society is sadly never going to happen, but any improvement is still improvement.

Utterly maddening when people say "who cares what the reason was??" about killers.

Everyone should care. If you understand the reasons you might be able to stop someone else before it even happens.

[jet]

That's a good point I suppose. The active Royals don't have to be grifters, sopping sycophants are too keen to serve up whatever they want on a golden platter :joker:.

"Freeloaders" would be a better word maybe. Spongers. Leeches. Parasites?

In terms of what the Royals bring to the economy, valuation consultancy group, Brand Finance, estimated that the monarchy’s helped boost the economy with a gross uplift of £1.76billion in the year 2021/22. Mainy through tourism and other methods.

We need more Parasites! :thumbs2:

[Redway]

Making a bit of a mess at a festival has literally nothing to do with generation or being paradoxically environmentally woke.

[Redway]

Random tangent.

The term Cultural Appropriation is abused so much nowadays imo, it's like people can't tell the difference between Cultural Appreciation and claiming that Kimono's are British (genuine Cultural Appropriation) it can be irritating when people can't tell the difference, regardless of what age group they're apart of.

I know that my post is a bit random, but I wanted to add my thoughts to the Cultural Appropriation stuff.

I remember how bad the cultural appropriation tag was around 2018/2019. Lots of people with crap memories of the past like to romanticise the way general society was before the pandemic (as if every era doesn’t have its highs and lows) but when it comes to that kind of propaganda (accusing people of culturally appropriating just for breathing, non-binary shiz) the late 2010s was a truly ridiculous time. It’s not as bad now.

[Oliver_W]

Making a bit of a mess at a festival has literally nothing to do with generation or being paradoxically environmentally woke.

Agreed.

I'm definitely all for calling out litterers and the environmentally unfriendly. But it would never occur to me to link the actions to someone's age or assumed politics.

[user104658]

In terms of what the Royals bring to the economy, valuation consultancy group, Brand Finance, estimated that the monarchy’s helped boost the economy with a gross uplift of £1.76billion in the year 2021/22. Mainy through tourism and other methods.

We need more Parasites! :thumbs2:

Pff, chicken feed. As Boris would say. Less than 0.05% of Britain's GDP. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that that tiny fraction of income is worth the psychological effect that a better-by-blood birthright monarchy has on a population.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Pff, chicken feed. As Boris would say. Less than 0.05% of Britain's GDP. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that that tiny fraction of income is worth the psychological effect that a better-by-blood birthright monarchy has on a population.

who on earth is comparing this with Britain's GDP.?

"Birmingham has a large population"

pfft "there are 7 billion people in the world"

get real

stop reaching

[bots]

who on earth is comparing this with Britain's GDP.?

"Birmingham has a large population"

pfft "there are 7 billion people in the world"

get real

stop reaching

it's being set up to sound like a big number to justify royalty, thats why, but the simple truth is tourists lap up brithish history, no living royals are required

[Glenn.]

it's being set up to sound like a big number to justify royalty, thats why, but the simple truth is tourists lap up brithish history, no living royals are required

And nothing when you compare what the royals apparently earn the country to the combined earnings made from cigarettes and alcohol which is £14b a year roughly.

[jet]

who on earth is comparing this with Britain's GDP.?

"Birmingham has a large population"

pfft "there are 7 billion people in the world"

get real

stop reaching

You’ll have to excuse SB, he is apparently psychologically affected, just like Harry, by the country having a monarchy. Waaagh! :bawling:

[user104658]

who on earth is comparing this with Britain's GDP.?

"Birmingham has a large population"

pfft "there are 7 billion people in the world"

get real

stop reaching

Its pointing out that doing away with their contribution entirely would make absolutely piss all difference to the UK's cash flow, when people are using the income they generate as justification for keeping them around.

[user104658]

You’ll have to excuse SB, he is apparently psychologically affected, just like Harry, by the country having a monarchy. Waaagh! :bawling:

I'm not affected because I don't think the Royals have any special status or gravitas whatsoever. The effect is on people who actually buy into the sad myth that some people are born better or more important than others.

[Mystic Mock]

I remember how bad the cultural appropriation tag was around 2018/2019. Lots of people with crap memories of the past like to romanticise the way general society was before the pandemic (as if every era doesn’t have its highs and lows) but when it comes to that kind of propaganda (accusing people of culturally appropriating just for breathing, non-binary shiz) the late 2010s was a truly ridiculous time. It’s not as bad now.

Oh I agree that the 2018-2020 period was the era of bad takes from society, or just people not reading a Dictionary to get the definition of certain terms.

Basically I agree with you, I think I've noticed in particular some significant improvement coming in the last two years, it's not perfect by any means, but like you've said no era is perfect.

[user104658]

Oh I agree that the 2018-2020 period was the era of bad takes from society, or just people not reading a Dictionary to get the definition of certain terms.

Basically I agree with you, I think I've noticed in particular some significant improvement coming in the last two years, it's not perfect by any means, but like you've said no era is perfect.

That's just how it goes though, in cycles. The backlash to the backlash to the backlash etc.

Things get bad, people go progressive and try to fix the "bad things" which then hit a sort of reasonable level, then things start to get a bit silly, then people get tired of it and head back the other way, then they forget to hit the brakes and become a bit extreme in that direction, then people notice things are bad and get progressive... that's the narrative loop of the Western World.

Only now, it's hyper-accelerated by fast, free, widescale communication options (i.e. the internet) so an undulation that used to take decades is flipping back and forth much faster.

The internet hasn't "changed" anything, per se, it's just a (major) catalyst.

[jet]

I'm not affected because I don't think the Royals have any special status or gravitas whatsoever. The effect is on people who actually buy into the sad myth that some people are born better or more important than others.

I don’t think many feel that way nowadays SB. People are just born, some into poverty, some into great richness , it's the accident of birth. No point in being bitter. :nono:
Many people enjoy the pomp and circumstance, the spectacular mass crowd - pulling displays, the history, the drama. Even America, who not - so- secretly envy us having our Monarchy, had to have their ‘first family’.
Not the superior you of course, you are above those who enjoy these things.

[Livia]

Royals don't need justification. They bring in a lot of cash, not just from tourists. Plus they're major employers. All the infos already online if people are truly interested and not just flogging the republican line. I could go on but I feel like I already have in threads actually about royals.

[bots]

Any other system such as a president would also employ a lot of staff, so that is a zero argument.

Everyone says, we don't want a blair or a boris as president, and that may well be true, but many people don't want a charles or a william either, but they are stuck with it. At least a president can be booted out after 4 years, we cant do that with charles

[Livia]

Any other system such as a president would also employ a lot of staff, so that is a zero argument.

Everyone says, we don't want a blair or a boris as president, and that may well be true, but many people don't want a charles or a william either, but they are stuck with it. At least a president can be booted out after 4 years, we cant do that with charles

You say "many". I say "some".

[user104658]

Royals don't need justification. They bring in a lot of cash, not just from tourists. Plus they're major employers. All the infos already online if people are truly interested and not just flogging the republican line. I could go on but I feel like I already have in threads actually about royals.

Ahh an exhaustive look into the things that matter when justifying the existence of an active monarchy.

1) Tourist income
2) Jobs for servants

Well, that's that then. A full social and economic analysis of the value of the monarchy. "There's tourism and they give some people jobs carrying their silver platters and picking their hats and stuff."

I'm 100% convinced now. Why could I not see it before? They're an unproblematic gold mine!

[Livia]

Ahh an exhaustive look into the things that matter when justifying the existence of an active monarchy.

1) Tourist income
2) Jobs for servants

Well, that's that then. A full social and economic analysis of the value of the monarchy. "There's tourism and they give some people jobs carrying their silver platters and picking their hats and stuff."

I'm 100% convinced now. Why could I not see it before? They're an unproblematic gold mine!

Your sarcasm is not humorous... in case you think it is.

[user104658]

Your sarcasm is not humorous... in case you think it is.

I'm not looking for chuckles.

[Livia]

Sigh......

[The Slim Reaper]

Always a bizarre argument the money they bring in, as if we wouldn't make more money from getting rid of them, and opening up their houses for the public to go round and visit Buck palace for £200 a pop. The septics and Japanese would flock through to see all the history.

[user104658]

Always a bizarre argument the money they bring in, as if we wouldn't make more money from getting rid of them, and opening up their houses for the public to go round and visit Buck palace for £200 a pop. The septics and Japanese would flock through to see all the history.

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

I was going to use the colosseum as the example ... but that thing would be packed full if they were having real gladiator battles in it.

Fingers crossed for Musk vs Zuck I guess.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

I was going to use the colosseum as the example ... but that thing would be packed full if they were having real gladiator battles in it.

Fingers crossed for Musk vs Zuck I guess.

Pyramids were not houses, they were burial chambers

[The Slim Reaper]

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

I was going to use the colosseum as the example ... but that thing would be packed full if they were having real gladiator battles in it.

Fingers crossed for Musk vs Zuck I guess.

Yup. Could probably rent out the queens bedroom for £1 million per night to some crazy billionaires. So many more avenues to making money without them if that's the argument the royalists are sticking to.

[user104658]

Pyramids were not houses, they were burial chambers

There could have been a small wooden house at the top, it would have disintegrated over time... you weren't there...

[user104658]

Yup. Could probably rent out the queens bedroom for £1 million per night to some crazy billionaires. So many more avenues to making money without them if that's the argument the royalists are sticking to.

Not poor Liz's bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum :worry:

[bots]

Not poor Liz's bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum :worry:

you are forgetting Camilla has already been there with "Charlie"

[user104658]

you are forgetting Camilla has already been there with "Charlie"

Surely not... surely even Charles wouldn't get up to hanky panky in his dead mum's bed... D:.

[Crimson Dynamo]

bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum :worry:

welcome to The Travel Lodge

[jet]

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"


The jaw - dropping Palace of Versaille in France, no Royals present, has an emergency fund page looking for donations from the public to keep it open. :whistle:

[jet]

you are forgetting Camilla has already been there with "Charlie"

My mind went straight to druggy Harry and Megsie. :laugh:

[jet]

Yup. Could probably rent out the queens bedroom for £1 million per night to some crazy billionaires. So many more avenues to making money without them if that's the argument the royalists are sticking to.

It isn’t. You and SB could research the many benefits of constitutional Monarchies, but then you would find out facts that you would really prefer not to know. :hmph:

[The Slim Reaper]

It isn’t. You and SB could research the many benefits of constitutional Monarchies, but then you would find out facts that you would really prefer not to know. :hmph:

Pray tell...

[bots]

at the moment there are only 2 or 3 palaces that living royals actually inhabit. The remaining huge number are funded via trusts or public donations and they are doing perfectly fine. Venues like the tower of london and leeds castle get millions of visitors without a living royal in sight

[jet]

Pray tell...

Pray google....You could start here, just the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.princestrustglobal.org/home

One extract from the site:

The Princes Trust group Annual Report

During 2021/22, together with our partners, we supported almost 82,000 young people across 21 countries to gain the skills they need to access the jobs of tomorrow, including in the green economy.
This included 60,000 young people in the UK, and almost 22,000 across the following 20 countries: Australia, Barbados, Canada, Egypt, Ghana, Greece, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, Rwanda, St. Lucia, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago and Uganda. We also continued to build our presence in the USA.

We also supported hundreds of military veterans in Australia and Canada, helping them to set up their own business after leaving the armed forces; and we enabled the development of a range of exemplary built environmental projects in Australia.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Brand Finance finds the Monarchy will deliver a £958 million economic benefit to the UK
this year

David Haigh, Chairman of Brand Finance, said:

“As King Charles is crowned, he faces the challenging task of adapting the
Monarchy and making it relevant to a new and sceptical audience in a rapidly
changing social and political landscape. Fortunately, there is strong evidence
that the Monarchy continues to deliver a huge benefit to the UK economy.”

https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk#:~:text=A%20new%20and%20updated%20cost,costs%20 rising%20and%20benefits%20declining.

[jet]

at the moment there are only 2 or 3 palaces that living royals actually inhabit. The remaining huge number are funded via trusts or public donations and they are doing perfectly fine. Venues like the tower of london and leeds castle get millions of visitors without a living royal in sight

People don't have to 'see' the Royals. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that a current, living Monarchy doesn't greatly boost visitor numbers.

[user104658]

Brand Finance, estimated that the monarchy’s helped boost the economy with a gross uplift of £1.76billion in the year 2021/22.

Brand Finance finds the Monarchy will deliver a £958 million economic benefit to the UK this year

tKdcjJoXeEY

They're not in decline though right jet? Right LT? ...right? They're not losing popularity since Elizabeth II died like ol' SB said are they fellas?

... are they? Are the year on year numbers available anywhere guys?

...guys?

[jet]

tKdcjJoXeEY

They're not in decline though right jet? Right LT? ...right? They're not losing popularity since Elizabeth II died like ol' SB said are they fellas?

... are they? Are the year on year numbers available anywhere guys?

...guys?

The visitors the Monarchy attracted for The Queen’s Platinum jubilee and her funeral, both in 2022 accounted for the gross uplift in that period.

You really sound quite delirious SB. Check your temperature. :worry:

[jet]

The Royals are doing just fine. :cool:

The Times 2023
Prince William was the most popular member of the British Royal Family, according to a survey conducted among adults in Great Britain in June 2023. Prince William's wife, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge was the joint-second most popular Royal, along with Princess Anne, with 73 percent of respondents having a positive opinion of those two royals. By contrast, Prince Andrew was by far the least-popular member of the Royal Family with just seven percent having a positive opinion of him.

In the last years of her reign, the Queen was generally viewed in a positive light by the British public, despite some significant swings in opinion for other members of the Royal Family. In particular, Prince Harry, previously once one of the most popular Royals has seen the share of Britons who view him favorably fall from 71 percent in 2019, to just 26 percent by January 2023. The Duchess of Sussex stands at 21%.
The current monarch, King Charles III, has gradually become more popular during the same time period, with 62 percent viewing him positively in June 2023, compared with 58 percent in 2020.

[user104658]

The visitors the Monarchy attracted for The Queen’s Platinum jubilee and her funeral, both in 2022 accounted for the gross uplift in that period.

You really sound quite delirious SB. Check your temperature. :worry:

Yes the queen's jubilee and funeral.

Charles' CORONATION was this year jet. Where was the uplift? Absent, because no one likes Charles, they liked The Queen. You're going to have to face reality at some point :joker:.

[user104658]

The Royals are doing just fine. :cool:

The Times 2023
Prince William was the most popular member of the British Royal Family, according to a survey conducted among adults in Great Britain in June 2023. Prince William's wife, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge was the joint-second most popular Royal, along with Princess Anne, with 73 percent of respondents having a positive opinion of those two royals. By contrast, Prince Andrew was by far the least-popular member of the Royal Family with just seven percent having a positive opinion of him.

In the last years of her reign, the Queen was generally viewed in a positive light by the British public, despite some significant swings in opinion for other members of the Royal Family. In particular, Prince Harry, previously once one of the most popular Royals has seen the share of Britons who view him favorably fall from 71 percent in 2019, to just 26 percent by January 2023. The Duchess of Sussex stands at 21%.
The current monarch, King Charles III, has gradually become more popular during the same time period, with 62 percent viewing him positively in June 2023, compared with 58 percent in 2020.

You're going to have to explain to me how an opinion survey of adults in the UK means anything at all in terms of what value the monarchy represents in attracting tourism.

Come on jet you usually at least somewhat engage your brain.

[Mystic Mock]

welcome to The Travel Lodge

I like the Travel Lodge.

But funny post.:laugh:

[Mystic Mock]

The Royals are doing just fine. :cool:

The Times 2023
Prince William was the most popular member of the British Royal Family, according to a survey conducted among adults in Great Britain in June 2023. Prince William's wife, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge was the joint-second most popular Royal, along with Princess Anne, with 73 percent of respondents having a positive opinion of those two royals. By contrast, Prince Andrew was by far the least-popular member of the Royal Family with just seven percent having a positive opinion of him.

In the last years of her reign, the Queen was generally viewed in a positive light by the British public, despite some significant swings in opinion for other members of the Royal Family. In particular, Prince Harry, previously once one of the most popular Royals has seen the share of Britons who view him favorably fall from 71 percent in 2019, to just 26 percent by January 2023. The Duchess of Sussex stands at 21%.
The current monarch, King Charles III, has gradually become more popular during the same time period, with 62 percent viewing him positively in June 2023, compared with 58 percent in 2020.

I honestly don't get the appeal of William, he comes across unlikable imo.

And the 7% that have a positive opinion of Andrew need to be put on a watchlist.

[Jordan.]

Not poor Liz's bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum :worry:

Not uncommon after her kids have had their mates round

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/branded_news/BD30/production/_122023484_0001_5.jpg

[jet]

You're going to have to explain to me how an opinion survey of adults in the UK means anything at all in terms of what value the monarchy represents in attracting tourism.

Come on jet you usually at least somewhat engage your brain.

Was the change of subject too taxing for you?
It's about their individial popularity, obviously, not value. Where did I say it was? Not everything is about money. :nono:

[jet]

Yes the queen's jubilee and funeral.

Charles' CORONATION was this year jet. Where was the uplift? Absent, because no one likes Charles, they liked The Queen. You're going to have to face reality at some point :joker:.

2 big events (involving the wonderful QUEEN) versus 1.
We don’t know if there was no uplift 2023 so far as we only have 2022 to compare it with. Maybe you can find the figures, do some research yourself. I’m not a Charles fan (though I like him well enough and admire the amazing ventures he has set up and been involved with over the years) and of course he isn't as liked as the Queen was, but to say NO - ONE likes him is just plain stupid.
That poll has him at 62% positivity rating. Time will tell if he blows it or not.

[Oliver_W]

Regardless of public opinion or the rights and wrongs of the monarchy, they make more than they cost, so there's no real reason to remove them.

[user104658]

We don’t know if there was no uplift 2023 so far as we only have 2022 to compare it with. Maybe you can find the figures, do some research yourself.

LT shared them above, they're right there, the projection is that they're not even close, i.e. declining which is literally all that I said.

Not that they are "wildly unpopular" - but that their popularity is declining. Global interest is declining. These are just facts, that LT helpfully backed up with some figures.

Declining doesn't mean "low", it doesn't mean "less than 50%", it just means less than before. And that trend is highly likely to continue.

Global interest in Charles will have been at its peak with his coronation - it's not going to suddenly increase next year. Interest in Wiliam was because of the allure of the "young, modern" prince with a young family. Who is swiftly becoming a bald, middle-aged prince with teenagers. You're just lying to yourself in not seeing that the monarchy is on a gradual, but steady, decline (with a major downwards bump when Liz died).

[user104658]

they make more than they cost, so there's no real reason to remove them.

Massive over-simplification; there's no way to accurately quantify either.

[Oliver_W]

Massive over-simplification; there's no way to accurately quantify either.

So there's not a strong argument for abolishing :D

[bots]

So there's not a strong argument for abolishing :D

i would say there was a very strong argument for a democracy, where the voting public have the ability to choose who they want, but hey, democracy, who needs that eh? when we can have a guy that wants to be a tampon

[user104658]

So there's not a strong argument for abolishing :D

There are many strong arguments for abolishing once you realise that a tiny pittance of tourist income doesn't constitute the entire debate.

[Cherie]

abolished to be replaced by what, the GBP cant be trusted to put anyone half decent in as President, the tax payer will still be paying for a president and their staff, and probably the upkeep of all the various houses the royals inhabit ...no thanks

[Oliver_W]

There are many strong arguments for abolishing once you realise that a tiny pittance of tourist income doesn't constitute the entire debate.

That's fair, but a lot of the debate seems to consist of people whining about the cost, or hand-wringing that laws need one extra signature at some point.

[user104658]

abolished to be replaced by what, the GBP cant be trusted to put anyone half decent in as President, the tax payer will still be paying for a president and their staff, and probably the upkeep of all the various houses the royals inhabit ...no thanks

Replaced with literally nothing, you wouldn't have to change anything about how the government functions at all (except perhaps removing the Lords, which they want to do anyway). The Monarchy hasn't been a "real" part of the government for several decades.

[bots]

ideally, in a democracy, you want checks and balances, but the constitutional monarchy has never provided that

It's not going to change in my lifetime, but monarchy is on its way out. There is too much instant communication for it to survive

[user104658]

ideally, in a democracy, you want checks and balances, but the constitutional monarchy has never provided that

It's not going to change in my lifetime, but monarchy is on its way out. There is too much instant communication for it to survive

After the last Tory stint, the idea that the monarchy holds the Westminster government to account in any meaningful sense is laughable.

[jet]

LT shared them above, they're right there, the projection is that they're not even close, i.e. declining which is literally all that I said.

Not that they are "wildly unpopular" - but that their popularity is declining. Global interest is declining. These are just facts, that LT helpfully backed up with some figures.

Declining doesn't mean "low", it doesn't mean "less than 50%", it just means less than before. And that trend is highly likely to continue.

Global interest in Charles will have been at its peak with his coronation - it's not going to suddenly increase next year. Interest in Wiliam was because of the allure of the "young, modern" prince with a young family. Who is swiftly becoming a bald, middle-aged prince with teenagers. You're just lying to yourself in not seeing that the monarchy is on a gradual, but steady, decline (with a major downwards bump when Liz died).

I’m not as bothered about the Monarchy ending as you are about them continuing. :laugh:
The public and the press would still be interested in them anyway, especially Kate and William and their children as they grow. It isn’t as if they would disappear, never to be seen again.

[Oliver_W]

After the last Tory stint, the idea that the monarchy holds the Westminster government to account in any meaningful sense is laughable.

I think he means the Lords.

[bots]

I think he means the Lords.

no, i mean the monarchy. The British monarchy has never provided any chacks and balances in recent times. I think Victoria attempted to clip the governments wings on a couple of occasions, but was never very effective in that regard

[Alf]

Use the bin you scuffy, smelly, dirty, selfish, polluting bastards.

[jet]

Why would Anti - Monarchists want the end of these types of initiatives that benefit so many? It seems so selfish and uncaring of others. That's what I don't get.
This is what the Royals DO, their work.

An example.

https://www.princestrustglobal.org/
Background
The Prince’s Trust helps young people who have faced disadvantage and adversity to build a better future for themselves, through employment, education and enterprise. Founded by HM The King in 1976, the charity supports 11 to 30 year-olds who are unemployed or struggling at school. Many are in or leaving care, facing issues such as homelessness, poverty or mental health problems, or they have been in trouble with the law. The Trust helps young people to build skills and confidence and find employment. Over the last five years, three in four young people supported by The Prince’s Trust moved into work, education or training. The charity has helped more than a million young people to date and helps tens of thousands more across the UK each year. Facts and figures The Trust supported more than 46,000 young people during 2020/21. The Trust has helped more than a million young people since it was founded by HM The King in 1976.

Some others:

Early Childhood
https://royalfoundation.com/early-childhood/

The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
https://www.royal.uk/royal-foundation

The Duke of Edinburgh Awards
https://www.royal.uk/duke-edinburghs-award

The working Royals carry out over 3,000 engagements a year in support of their charities.

[user104658]

I think he means the Lords.

Even then they at one point did an OK-ish job at deflecting some of the barmier govt. suggestions but these days they seem to be completely ineffective.

[Oliver_W]

Even then they at one point did an OK-ish job at deflecting some of the barmier govt. suggestions but these days they seem to be completely ineffective.

Hm sure, as far as I know they can't outright say NO, but keep bouncing it back with suggested changes?

A year or two ago there was a debate on the trans stuff, and some of the Ladies were saying things which would probably endanger MPs' lives careers etc.

I believe in accountability and democracy, but it's refreshing to have people who can say what they like without fear.

[Redway]

Oh I agree that the 2018-2020 period was the era of bad takes from society, or just people not reading a Dictionary to get the definition of certain terms.

Basically I agree with you, I think I've noticed in particular some significant improvement coming in the last two years, it's not perfect by any means, but like you've said no era is perfect.

Yeah, I agree. When people waffle on about how rosy life was before the pandemic I want to scream. Every era has its highs and lows and people whinge and moan about the lows and how much better things were in the past every year. There were a lot of things about the past that genuinely were better but 2006 would be my reference-point for that, not 2016.

[user104658]

Yeah, I agree. When people waffle on about how rosy life was before the pandemic I want to scream. Every era has its highs and lows and people whinge and moan about the lows and how much better things were in the past every year. There were a lot of things about the past that genuinely were better but 2006 would be my reference-point for that, not 2016.

I genuinely believe that Western society (for the average person) more or less "peaked" in the 90's and 00's.

[The Slim Reaper]

Before the 2008 crash, because that was the beginning of the ramped up decision to shift wealth upwards across the world, with austerity movements and by balancing the crash on the back of the poorest, rather than the folks that caused it, which forced a a shift ever more rightwards. Freedoms have been taken away and lost over the last 15 years that it might take centuries to ever get back.

[Oliver_W]

I genuinely believe that Western society (for the average person) more or less "peaked" in the 90's and 00's.

Yup.

Especially for average LGBT people; I feel that was the best time for actual acceptance, in that no-one gave a sht. Better than the offputting performative "wokeness", for want of a better term.

[Oliver_W]

Freedoms have been taken away and lost over the last 15 years that it might take centuries to ever get back.

To what freedoms do you refer?
(Pre-pandemic)

[Mystic Mock]

Yeah, I agree. When people waffle on about how rosy life was before the pandemic I want to scream. Every era has its highs and lows and people whinge and moan about the lows and how much better things were in the past every year. There were a lot of things about the past that genuinely were better but 2006 would be my reference-point for that, not 2016.

Personally speaking 2016 has been the worst year of my life so far for a multitude of reasons.

And I agree that 2006 was a great year, but that could be my childhood nostalgia talking tbf.

[Redway]

Personally speaking 2016 has been the worst year of my life so far for a multitude of reasons.

And I agree that 2006 was a great year, but that could be my childhood nostalgia talking tbf.

Yeah, no, there was a lot of stuff to genuinely miss about the noughties. 2006 was quite a sweet spot.

2016 was so-so for me. We lost an auntie to cancer that year so there was that but there was quite a bit of good stuff going on (more-so nearer the end). But Brexit was in the air and it … yeah. Lots of awful things about that 2013 to 2019 period. The back-end of 2013 and first two months and a bit of 2014 were okay (the fact that we were climbing out of the recession/credit crunch helped). So nostalgia’s deffo valid but a lot of people’s reference points are about 10 years late. Either they’re that young or they have very short memories and can’t remember what life was really like before the pandemic so rate it as better than it was. It was cute 2 years ago but at this point it’s just annoying.

[Redway]

I genuinely believe that Western society (for the average person) more or less "peaked" in the 90's and 00's.

Not so much in America but definitely in the UK. I agree. The way TV declined after 2012 was no joke.

[Mystic Mock]

Yeah, no, there was a lot of stuff to genuinely miss about the noughties. 2006 was quite a sweet spot.

2016 was so-so for me. We lost an auntie to cancer that year so there was that but there was quite a bit of good stuff going on (more-so nearer the end). But Brexit was in the air and it … yeah. Lots of awful things about that 2013 to 2019 period. The back-end of 2013 and first two months and a bit of 2014 were okay (the fact that we were climbing out of the recession/credit crunch helped). So nostalgia’s deffo valid but a lot of people’s reference points are about 10 years late. Either they’re that young or they have very short memories and can’t remember what life was really like before the pandemic so rate it as better than it was. It was cute 2 years ago but at this point it’s just annoying.

I'm sorry to hear about your Auntie, Redway, I would think that it was a traumatizing experience.

But I do agree with you that every era has it's pro's and con's, I think childhood nostalgia can bias people into which era is their favourite.

[Redway]

I'm sorry to hear about your Auntie, Redway, I would think that it was a traumatizing experience.

But I do agree with you that every era has it's pro's and con's, I think childhood nostalgia can bias people into which era is their favourite.

It’s cool.

But yeah. We’re all a little nostalgic about something from the past and maybe with good cause but those pre vs. post-Covid people are just pathetic. Life didn’t magically start in 2018/2019 and sh*t happened then as well, just like it always has. Hindsight just tints the past in golden rose. Even if most of it was pretty bad.

[user104658]

It’s cool.

But yeah. We’re all a little nostalgic about something from the past and maybe with good cause but those pre vs. post-Covid people are just pathetic. Life didn’t magically start in 2018/2019 and sh*t happened then as well, just like it always has. Hindsight just tints the past in golden rose. Even if most of it was pretty bad.

To be fair though there were a few fundamental shifts during the Covid era, such as the slide into remote working/company structures being rebuilt around remote operation. It was probably coming anyway but Covid sort of catalysed and accelerated a lot of things.