Royal Wedding - The poll.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by katex

That 'eyes to heaven' emoticon should not be aimed at me. I did not express a view that, whichever way people voted, they should explain themselves.

As I am in the middle of composing a 15,000 words reply (ok exaggeration), I may consider posting it later, however, knowing that it will be subject to heavy criticism, analysis of every word and general insults I may back down.

Seems to me though, there are a couple of issues going on in the minds of people who have voted 'No', not just the economy .. just the ones that dislike the monarchy anyway, and would vote this way no matter what the question was. Also, a couple that I suspect is politically biased against our Conservative council.

For instance, even though I am not overly fond of football, I would still vote a yes to the Council backing up our Accrington Stanley, a minority pleasure for some, even in the face of this gloomy economy if they decided to do so.

You said that some no voters hadn't expressed an opinion. I hadn't. So I did. (The "eyes to heaven" opticon was mildly and amusedly exasperated, rather than heavily sarcastic. ).

I've no axe to grind against the Royal Family or the Conservatives. I can take or leave the former and I despise Labour every bit as much as I do the Tories. I just think in this time of stringent costcutting measures, it's sheer madness to squander public money on Royal Wedding celebrations.

However, far more importantly, what's all this about not being overly fond of football? I thought you said you were coming up the Stanley on Saturday? I was really looking forward to meeting you!

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

I bet you'd sell more DON'T CLOSE THE BOGS tea-towels, than you would for the receding heir to the throne's wedding.

knocking bet, many more care about that fact fer sure.

[katex]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

You said that some no voters hadn't expressed an opinion. I hadn't. So I did. (The "eyes to heaven" opticon was mildly and amusedly exasperated, rather than heavily sarcastic. ).

!

No, mine was just in return for Cashy's remark about 'yes' voters being gutless for not posting their reasons .. I just pointed out that quite a few 'no' voters had not either. And I don't for one minute believe you were not being sarcastic to me.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by katex

No, mine was just in return for Cashy's remark about 'yes' voters being gutless for not posting their reasons .. I just pointed out that quite a few 'no' voters had not either. And I don't for one minute believe you were not being sarcastic to me.

thats cos yeh dont know him......i'm the sarcastic one, wyns a very nice gentleman.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by katex

W£ell. let's stick to that,shall we ?.

Sure. You were factually wrong. Council tax money did fund the flash mob. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by katex

Another megalomaniac post ..

I have not had a go at people who voted 'no' .. why are you having a go because I voted 'yes' reverting to past heavily discussed issues, which have no relevance on this thread ?...

Marketing is not easy to calculate as to the gains ... you should know that. Gains can turn up to years later.

I'm not 'having a go' at the yes we're happy to blow the money voters.

I'm stating that far from being 'priceless', with residential care homes for disabled children threatened with closure, as well as hundereds of local jobs being at risk, it is an irresponsible waste of money.

No factual evidence can be given as to any finacial returns. That would be guess work. Which is never a good thing to do, when faced with dire straits. Even with other peoples' money.

As for megalomanical, you might want to check your vocabulary, as well as your facts.

If you mean not afraid of speaking out, when something is obviously wrong. Yes that's me. Bring it on.

I've always been comfortable in my own skin ever to feel the need to chase power, or wealth. Nor do I suffer from mental illness.

Though I do occasionally fear for the sanity of some poor deluded souls.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by katex

No, mine was just in return for Cashy's remark about 'yes' voters being gutless for not posting their reasons .. I just pointed out that quite a few 'no' voters had not either. And I don't for one minute believe you were not being sarcastic to me.

It's quite clear Cashman was referring to those who voted yes, who live outside the area, and who gave no further reasoning, as to why they thought yes, we should pay for this hurrah in Hyndburn.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by katex

And I don't for one minute believe you were not being sarcastic to me.

So what you're saying is that I'm a liar? I'm a lot of things but not that, as anyone who knows me will tell you. Still, you're entitled to your opinion. It's about as valid as your opinion on the Royal Wedding HBC celebrations.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

It's quite clear Cashman was referring to those who voted yes, who live outside the area, and who gave no further reasoning, as to why they thought yes, we should pay for this hurrah in Hyndburn.

not when yer defending the indefensible as 1 of the 6 is.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

So what you're saying is that I'm a liar? I'm a lot of things but not that, as anyone who knows me will tell you. Still, you're entitled to your opinion.

That's you labelled.

I'm 'more money than sense', please to meet you.

Although having met you, the label I'd stick on you, if forced to, would either be 'straight as a die', or 'honest as the day is long'.

Takes all sorts.

Some'll happily fork out for a full orchestra, to belt out 'Land of Hope and Glory', without a hope in Hell of actually paying them for doing so.

(No smiley, so as not to cause anyone grave offence.)

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I've no axe to grind against the Royal Family or the Conservatives. I can take or leave the former and I despise Labour every bit as much as I do the Tories. I just think in this time of stringent costcutting measures, it's sheer madness to squander public money on Royal Wedding celebrations.

People, across the political spectrum, have returned an almighty NO vote.

All united, from right-wing Tory, to left-wing red, and the many moderates, of no particular political persuasion, in thinking this is an utter waste of their money.

It is about costs.

[katex]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Plain enough for you, Kate?

How else would you take that virtual comment, Wynonie ? Implied that I was questioning your right not to comment on your vote and, as explained, I did not question that in the first place. Wouldn't exactly call you a liar . that's a bit strong ... just that you were being sarcastic with me, without just cause.

Well, am coming off this thread now as, as predicated, has just resorted to a slanging match due to the fact that I dared to vote a 'yes' on the poll and tried to be reasonable about the costs and dared to look at the bigger picture.

'Course I have not got around to the loyalty for our past and how the world is envious about our Monarchy. The ceremony with our soldiers and dignitaries in their smart uniforms, the golden coach, the absolute professional organisation we have for such events. The past memories of the bringing together families like our Queen's marriage, when ration coupons were still being distributed, but still helped to hold the country together. And, of course, the millions it will bring into the country.

However, mustn't digress into the National contribution as Garinda said, but seems able to spread his own tentacles into other areas.

Bet all you 'no's' will have a quick peek anyway and derive some sort of pleasure and pride from it...

And bet there are loads of members on here who would vote yes but daren't due to preempting attacks such as these.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by katex

And bet there are loads of members on here who would vote yes but daren't due to preempting attacks such as these.

well that shocked me, yeh really are away wi the fairies if yeh honestly think that...........Beam me up Scotty.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by katex

And I don't for one minute believe you were not being sarcastic to me.

Well, if you "don't for one minute believe" what I was saying, then in my eyes you're calling me a liar.

Also, if you think that there are hordes of subdued would-be "yes" voters, cowed into silence, then you have a very low opinion of your fellow Accywebbers. From my experience of this forum, the vast majority of members will come right out and say what they think, regardless of Gary's, Cashy's, mine or anybody else's opinion! (Look - no emoticons!).

[shillelagh]

i dont know ... thats why i havent voted .... cant make my mind up either way ....

[garinda]

Originally Posted by katex

I dared to vote a 'yes' on the poll and tried to be reasonable about the costs and dared to look at the bigger picture.

No one can be 'reasonable' about the costs, because as yet they're unknown. Though judging from the costs of other civic celebrations they're unlikely to be meagre.

The vast majority of people object on principle, to there being any costs involved at all, to be funded from the public purse, and therefore paid for by themselves.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You and Neil are happy paying for the royal wedding celebrations.

The rest of Hyndburn disagree, and are not so very keen. To say the least.



P.S. As a holiday idea, why not join the millions of fellow tourists and visit France's historic palaces and monuments?

Toy Town soldiers, in ever such cute uniforms.

A thousand rooms at Versailles to mooch around. Rather than a miserly ten at Buck House.

All this, and the only royal personage you're likely to see will probably be a ghost.

Bon voyage.