You did give me a bit to chew on though and it would be rude of me to ignore it. And I respect myself too much to not share my thoughts and invite your considered reply. Strap in.
...Lady C, Megyn Kelly and Nana Akua, and also The Royal Grifter and The Royal Rogue are 5 reliable and cedible sources....They are from what I can see 90-95 accurate..... and better, independent.
Megyn Kelly's name is the only one I'm familiar with there and only through reputation as I've not been following her for quite some years. But I will commend you at least for casting your net wider than the Average Joe who would prefer one mainstream "authority" and insist with hand on heart that its institution was beyond repute. I've a feeling I am preaching to the choir here when I say that to do so is a mistake. Everyone (and this includes you and I) have our biases, some commentators biases are influenced by financial gain and there are those who prefer to remain a breed apart.
I was taught long ago to question authority for this very reason and to this day I apply it across the board - to media, to rulers and representatives, the people I talk to, even myself. It's an essential habit and one I find easy enough to do, especially since I was lucky enough to receive an education in Critical Thinking before it was removed from the Australian educational syllabus and take a personal interest in the consumption of historical and philosophical works as and when time permits. Being open to previously unexplored or unrevealed ideas and taking the time to sift through them to determine their legitimacy
You mentioned five sources above and I'll be sure to keep an ear out for them on my daily rounds. I'd return the favour by leaving a few independent resources I imagine might be useful and potentially palatable to your sensibilities. They are:-
I've deliberately chosen these three sources because I feel there's a substantial overlap with your expressed interests. Almost certainly you will not agree with all of it, but then I don't either - I don't let it get in my way of hearing what they have to impart. Some of it has proven very useful, I'll often have it in my headphones while I'm doing other things.
I don't necessarily agree with you entirely on the offset of costs either, and I'll tell you why, That 350 million? A great return on investment to be sure, but how much of that do you imagine the taxpayer actually sees? Not much, I'll bet. Someone's hoovering up a greater share of that chunk and any knock-on to the public will be miniscule at best. Most of those tourist dollars would be spent (and taxed again) in London itself, a lefty shithole with sky high rents most middle class professionals can ill afford and overrun with government-subsidised pakistani reffos who are raping British teenage girls at a rate of 20,000 times a year across the isles while the gay pride flagwaving constabulary runs interference for the groomer gangs in the name of diversity. When they aren't out arresting the citizens for making mean tweets online I mean. Twenty miles out of London, those tourist dollars are unknown and the plebs have to be content with curry-flavoured dick.Quote
this entire and truthful paragraph is the reason why suicide is now a popular sport,,,
The thing is it needn't be. I've seen what untimely ends do to people; I'd not wish that on anyone. I made a promise to myself long ago to never allow myself to get that depressed, because while I have every reason to expect I won't have to deal with the fallout, there's a good chance those I care deeply about will.
Besides, I have unfinished business. I'm still planting trees under whose shade I know I'll never sit.
If we could categorically state the original investment was that super-shadowy "someone" pulling the 125 million out of their own pocket then fine, except we know the 125 million was appropriated from the public purse and precious little of the 350 million it generated will actually make it back there. Theft by any other name. I guess the average British taxpayer should be thankful they only lost a couple of quid out of the exchange.
I disagree with this. They got a front row, sensational, one of a kind church service, many hours of a free musical concert and a world wide tourism promtion for a couple of quid. If they whinge over that, they need their crotches kicked in.
And this after you agreed with me above that the tourist dollars meant dick once you got twenty miles out of London, a sprawling metropolis that these days is about as far removed from British tradition as it is possible to be and still be on the same island.
You would kick the crotch out of a Northerner for their ingratitude that a Londoner gets a couple of days exposure, free concert, a church service for the very guy that's in the process of forsaking it... not very charitable of you Caskur. And I imagine that if a similar shindig was organised... in Canberra... you would be as likely to attend it as they. In fact... I imagine I might expect you to tell the eastern states to go fuck themselves. And to give you your money back or you would kick them in the crotch.
Is that a fair assumption? Of course it is. So tell me again why non-Londoners shouldn't feel similarly. If reasonability is the order of the day, I doubt you can.
For what it's worth, I did watch the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Dianna. I'm not in a position to compare it to the recent coronation, but I can tell you that if there was magic to be had in the occasion, the television coverage didn't do it justice. Not for me... and I've worked in media as you know. Actually being at an Event is where it's at... watching it on a box while some wanker describes it in overly effusive superlatives is a surefire way of cheapening it.
