UK Tax Payer to foot Royal Wedding Security Bill, why?

[EggFriedRice]

Just been announced on the news that the UK taxpayer is footing the security bill for the Royal wedding in April 2011. I am not personally a fan of the royal family nor is my DH, we don't agree that our taxes should be spent on someones wedding security arrangements. Why is the Queen not paying for this after all she is one of the wealthiest women in the world? With all of the cuts being announced I don't feel that it is right or fair to make the taxpayer pay for the royals security wedding plans. They will never suffer the hardships that so many people are or will be going through in this country it is a disgrace imo.
I suppose the extra Bank Holiday on 29th April 2011 is to keep us happy

Much more important and useful to UKPLC than the Olympics, where security costs will be astronomical.

You'd be surprised. A lot of American's and Chinese love to visit this country and top of their list of places to visit in London......Buckingham Palace.

DirectGov says that the royal family will pay for the cost of the wedding?

It's a money making event so they should pay for it as they will be earning from it - fee's from Hello etc can be used to pay for security.

Music festivals and other large public money generating events have to pay the police for security & Will & co should be treated the same.

www.attractionsmanagement.com/detail1.cfm?pagetype=detail&subject=news&codeID=227363&site=AM&dom=N

Looks like a no brainer to me. Spend £30million on security, bag £500m in tourism. Even if they vastly underestimate, we're still quids in.

Think it's fair enough. The taxpayer pays for the security. But also think that the taxpayer should get a percentage of the profits the royals will generate, because after all, we're all in this together.

sorry - missed specifically security, as you were...

Very unbothered by cost of security for royal wedding - and think it will probably be made back in celebrations etc.

Far more worried that my due date is 21 April. And I'm going to St Thomas's hospital, just over the river. I'm bound to be a week late - so then I reckon I'll be giving birth in a) a crowd of "well wishers" or b) in a police-escort motorcade. And it's my first...

Georgie I'm due on 28th (2nd child) - but I'm north of the madness (I hope).

But BadgersPaws, where are we getting the 7 billion from? Won't we have to borrow it? And what about the next bailout, or the one after that? Royal weddings of this scale come round once every 2 or 3 decades. We've already had our own banking bailout and the UK is apparently committed, whether we like it or not, to an unlimited number of EU bailouts as and when they arise. In that context, 30 million is a drop in the ocean...

Finding - not sure on that. Nowhere will be safe by then...

But also think that the taxpayer should get a percentage of the profits the royals will generate, because after all, we're all in this together. smile

'expat - I can see a wee argument occuring in our house when dd realises it's in the Easter holidays and that 25 minutes by train isn't that far. She'll be almost 13 by then but I'm still not letting her go and there's no way I want to go.'

Thankfully, Laurie, there will be no such arguments up here :o.

And no, I think if this is an attack, it will not be against all those heads of state. It will be on civilians.

Hence, there's no way in a million years I'd go anywhere near there for the wedding.

ooh, ooh...

you could call it 'Will' or 'Kate'

if there is an attack. Soz.

ilovemydogandMrObama - The income from tourism will be fed back to the taxpayer through VAT receipts and other taxes such as corporation tax, airline tax etc etc. If anything it is the the taxpayer getting a return and the royal family with costs and no income from the event.

I feel sorry for the couple because they don't have many choices about the privacy of their wedding.

you'd be amazed at just how enthralled with the Roayl Family people overseas are.

I left the UK for Zimbabwe just before Dianas funeral.

There was a small group of us and we spent the first few nights staying in an SOS Village.

On the day of the funeral we all got up rather late - to find the village deserted, and further investigation we found everyone, adults and children crammed round a handful of TV's in various tiny houses watching the funeral........wondering why we hadn't got there earlier!!!

"Tourism?! Please tell me noone would actually be sad enought to go and watch?!"

Maybe you're too young to remember the day of Princess Diana's funeral when the entire country came to a standstill because of 'sad people' that wanted to be there? I was stationed on a bridge over the M1 on the day and the entire motorway came to a halt. But, more recently, you can point to any big formal occasion ... Trooping of the Colour, State Opening of Parliament, Lord Mayor's Parade... and the crowds are always out in force. Britain does big ceremonies better than anwhere else and to misquote Costner ... if we pomp it up it, they will come!!

Oh, I'll bet there will be a whole load of saddos watching it or pulling up in London to see it.

at the Costner quote!

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think it is PERFECTLY fair that the taxpayers pay for the security of their wedding.

Let's for arguments sake say that your average middle class couple wanted to get married. For whatever reason they upset the wrong people and they have a real & credible threat against their lives on their wedding day.

Would you expect the police to say "Sorry mate, we can't protect you unless you pay us £xx for the cost of security"

What about if that person was then instead Alan Sugar or Wayne Rooney? Would we charge them just because they are rich?

If so, at what income do we withdraw police protection?

There isn't an issue that the police/security services should provide the operational security. A typical family however doesn't invite heads of state, attract lots of crowds and get married at a very public venue.

And yes, if they are rich, they should pay for it, or at the very least make a large contribution.

It will be a huge money spinner for the UK. Obviously, if we didn't have to pay the five million for security the UK would be better off... and obviously the money spun will be going to businesses, rather than back into the public purse to offset the expense, but hey ho, we've got a Royal Wedding to look forward to haven't we?

30 million? Wow, every time I read the papers the figure is larger.

And yes, if they are rich, they should pay for it, or at the very least make a large contribution.