22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm curious, what did Obama do that you considered low?

It's what he didn't do as much as what he did. Oh!! Bailed out Wall Street and let the poor people suffer.

Edited January 15, 20188 yr by owl sees all

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I see thing similarly to you, but then arrive at a different conclusion.

 

I assume that the bulk of costs will be paid by the UK taxpayer. Therefore the UK government has a say in the event - and diplomatic protocol should be followed. Whether he should attend is another matter, but I think that it would be a slight against the US if the POTUS was not invited.

The costs of the wedding are paid for by the Royal Family out of their investments (you can argue about how it came to be - but it is just the state of it).  The costs that are paid for out of the public purse are the normal extra security costs.  Security costs go up and down depending on the size of crowds -- as well as the level of the security threat.  Larger crowds, larger security costs.  The only right of influence that the government has is they could go out and disperse the public - but that would be extremely bad PR for it.  Security goes up for sporting events by private teams, public celebrations, large conventions - but the government does not get a say on how those events are run internally.  The extra security is primarily there to protect the public from things like terror events.  The fact is that any major Royal wedding -- lots of the public want to attend to be able to say they were there on such and such a day.  

 

Since it is not a state wedding, the government has no say.  This is not a diplomatic event, this is a private event that is being shared with the public because that is what the public wants.   The government has no right to tell who you have to allow to attend your wedding, and in this case the same standard should and has to be applied to this private wedding just like any other.

47 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

It's what he didn't do as much as what he did. Oh!! Bailed out Wall Street and let the poor people suffer.

The Wall Street bail-out was largely under Bush.  Also, if you think Trump, with his Wall Street cabinet, will be less a friend of the rich you are delusional.

 

The Affordable Health Act helped the poor in the US more than any other program since the Johnson Administration.  I have to wonder where you get your (mis)information.

2 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The costs of the wedding are paid for by the Royal Family out of their investments (you can argue about how it came to be - but it is just the state of it).  The costs that are paid for out of the public purse are the normal extra security costs.  Security costs go up and down depending on the size of crowds -- as well as the level of the security threat.  Larger crowds, larger security costs.  The only right of influence that the government has is they could go out and disperse the public - but that would be extremely bad PR for it.  Security goes up for sporting events by private teams, public celebrations, large conventions - but the government does not get a say on how those events are run internally.  The extra security is primarily there to protect the public from things like terror events.  The fact is that any major Royal wedding -- lots of the public want to attend to be able to say they were there on such and such a day.  

 

Since it is not a state wedding, the government has no say.  This is not a diplomatic event, this is a private event that is being shared with the public because that is what the public wants.   The government has no right to tell who you have to allow to attend your wedding, and in this case the same standard should and has to be applied to this private wedding just like any other.

Fair enough re: not being a state wedding. As for the cost of security, I understand that any private event that requires a police security presence pays the costs associated with that presence. It seems you are advocating for a public / private partnership - the public stumps up for the cost of organisation, the happy couple retain control over who can and cannot come.

Another idea. They could really mess with the Americans by not inviting Obama or trump, but inviting Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush instead!

23 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Fair enough re: not being a state wedding. As for the cost of security, I understand that any private event that requires a police security presence pays the costs associated with that presence. It seems you are advocating for a public / private partnership - the public stumps up for the cost of organisation, the happy couple retain control over who can and cannot come.

Events typically pay the costs of security on private land, the public pays for stuff on public land.  I doubt all the crowds are going to be invited onto private grounds - my guess is they will line the street somewhere to get a glimpse (though I am never bothered to attend since.... well ... I could not be bothered .... it does not interest me.... I am more like my father who would try to stay far away as not to have to meet figureheads of no importance in the real world).   The government of course could decide that they don't want to provide security on public land, streets etc.... but then if some terrorist takes the opportunity to take out some soft-targets.... it would not look good.  Donald Trump (if not invited) is free like the rest of the people that are not invited -- to line the streets to try and get a glimpse...

 

For example if you have people attending a game in a stadium -- security is often provided by police and the event will pay for them.  If they win and the crowds go up the public street to celebrate - that is public land with police paid for as normal by the public. 

 

The area that gets fuzzy in my mind is when it is public land and they get a permit - that would probably have to be paid for privately.

Edited January 15, 20188 yr by bkkcanuck8

Only if they are not getting married in a third world country. By the way, did Trump tweet a list of those countries he was ranting about?

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I see thing similarly to you, but then arrive at a different conclusion.

 

I assume that the bulk of costs will be paid by the UK taxpayer. Therefore the UK government has a say in the event - and diplomatic protocol should be followed. Whether he should attend is another matter, but I think that it would be a slight against the US if the POTUS was not invited.

 

Why do you assume that the bulk of the costs will be borne by the UK taxpayer?

5 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

.......

 

The area that gets fuzzy in my mind is when it is public land and they get a permit - that would probably have to be paid for privately.

It isn't on public land, it's in his granny's house, on his granny's land.

8 hours ago, owl sees all said:

It's what he didn't do as much as what he did. Oh!! Bailed out Wall Street and let the poor people suffer.

Under Obama very strong regulations were put in place to make sure that there wasn't a repeat of the financial crisis of 2008. Trump is in the process of revoking those regulations. Considering that his economics advisor used to be the number 2 man at Goldman Sachs and his Treasury Secretary was himself a Goldman Sachs alumnus and a banker, no big surprises here.

It should be pointed out the Obama was not invited to Prince William's wedding. He managed somehow not to be offended. Obama is personally friendly with Prince Harry. So if in invitation is coming it will be on that basis.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Why do you assume that the bulk of the costs will be borne by the UK taxpayer?

As bkkcanuck8 pointed out, the cost of security and transport is for the taxpayer. I assumed the bulk because Betty likes to keep the money she gets from the taxpayer far away from the taxman, nice and warm and secure in Panama. That way she can pretend that she has none, so the taxpayer has to pay to renovate her home.

11 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

As bkkcanuck8 pointed out, the cost of security and transport is for the taxpayer. I assumed the bulk because Betty likes to keep the money she gets from the taxpayer far away from the taxman, nice and warm and secure in Panama. That way she can pretend that she has none, so the taxpayer has to pay to renovate her home.

 

Do you actually have any proof that the Queen banks in Panama or are you just wandering in your mind once again?

 

FYI the taxpayer pays the salaries and for the upkeep for the royal households from the civil list.

 

Try doing a little research before posting total rubbish.

 

here may be a starting point for you.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Do you actually have any proof that the Queen banks in Panama or are you just wandering in your mind once again?

 

FYI the taxpayer pays the salaries and for the upkeep for the royal households from the civil list.

 

Try doing a little research before posting total rubbish.

 

here may be a starting point for you.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

So you ask a question, which implies that you are unaware of the answer. However rather than wait for a respone, in the same post you decry my suggestion as 'total rubbish'? Far be it from me to suggest that you are somewhat close minded, but I suspect that no end of fact is going to enlighten you.

 

I must admit, however, that I was getting my offshore tax havens mixed up (there are so many of them that our masters enjoy). She has been revealed to be stashing our cash in the Caymans, not Panama.

 

"Paradise Papers: Queen's private estate invested millions in offshore funds, leaked files reveal"

 

But at least we agree on one thing - the hard-pressed taxpayer has to support this hideously bloated and out of date mafia organisation.

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So you ask a question, which implies that you are unaware of the answer. However rather than wait for a respone, in the same post you decry my suggestion as 'total rubbish'? Far be it from me to suggest that you are somewhat close minded, but I suspect that no end of fact is going to enlighten you.

 

I must admit, however, that I was getting my offshore tax havens mixed up (there are so many of them that our masters enjoy). She has been revealed to be stashing our cash in the Caymans, not Panama.

 

"Paradise Papers: Queen's private estate invested millions in offshore funds, leaked files reveal"

 

But at least we agree on one thing - the hard-pressed taxpayer has to support this hideously bloated and out of date mafia organisation.

Their have been no allegations that any of the Queen's private assets have been moved offshore illegally. Plenty of info / analysis demonstrating the institution of the Royal Family are a net income provider for HMG.

15 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So you ask a question, which implies that you are unaware of the answer. However rather than wait for a respone, in the same post you decry my suggestion as 'total rubbish'? Far be it from me to suggest that you are somewhat close minded, but I suspect that no end of fact is going to enlighten you.

 

I must admit, however, that I was getting my offshore tax havens mixed up (there are so many of them that our masters enjoy). She has been revealed to be stashing our cash in the Caymans, not Panama.

 

"Paradise Papers: Queen's private estate invested millions in offshore funds, leaked files reveal"

 

But at least we agree on one thing - the hard-pressed taxpayer has to support this hideously bloated and out of date mafia organisation.

 

Actually no we don't agree on anything to do with the Queen's finances and the civil list.

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Their have been no allegations that any of the Queen's private assets have been moved offshore illegally. Plenty of info / analysis demonstrating the institution of the Royal Family are a net income provider for HMG.

Of course it is not illegal, just like it is not illegal for cabinet ministers, their friends and wealthy donors also to shelter their cash out of the reach of the taxman. However, as they are the people who, in general, are responsible for making or influencing the laws that allow them to make such investments, they can hardly hold their hands up and claim innocence (from a moral / ethical perspective, of course).