M & H-as-I-call-him 16

[yolofish]

Well here we are, another thread for those who wish to discuss. We are not nasty, but we do call account on what is going on, and and what taxpayers pay for.

I think we should use "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"! It's perfect and in keeping with Life of Brian being controversial at the time (if it can be considered controversial - I thought the reason was scraping the barrel a bit).

Hear hear salmons

I have to put my hand up and say that I don’t actually agree with philanthropy in and of itself.

I think people should pay tax, and the more money / wealth they have the more tax they should pay... Denmark does very well with a 55.5% higher band tax rate.
The accountable State should provide services for the citizens who pay for them.

The world is going to hell in a hand basket, and we have private jet frequent flyers speaking for money, to immoral bankers on how they find their diamond slippers too tight... good god almighty.

The idea that philanthropy is a worthy career for the wealthy and the wannabes underlines the complete dislocation between the Golden circle jerk and the majority of the humans on this earth.

The wealthiest one percent on this planet own more than half the world’s wealth.
One third of children in the UK live below the poverty line.

We have no need for billionaires, or oligarchs, or philanthropy if everyone pays their share of tax, has equal opportunities, and we have a truly just and sustainable world.

Philanthropy is part of the problem.

annielouise

I think we should use "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"! It's perfect and in keeping with Life of Brian being controversial at the time (if it can be considered controversial - I thought the reason was scraping the barrel a bit).

I agree.

But it seems you have to take posters at face value.

I've seen others deleted for not doing so.

Bill Gates is a real philanthropist. Having made a ton of money, from his own efforts, he's given huge amounts to good causes especially around treating malaria and tropical diseases. Likewise J. K. Rowling has given away huge amounts of her own money. George Michael did this and kept it secret. So perhaps if philanthropy is what they want to do, they could start with giving some of their £34m to good causes.

LaM it was very convoluted as you say. A thin reason.

Yes, Coffee! Especially this:

The idea that philanthropy is a worthy career for the wealthy and the wannabes underlines the complete dislocation between the Golden circle jerk and the majority of the humans on this earth.

Now I do agree with Coffee about tax and philanthropy. It's something people and corporations are guilty of and has been around for a long time, so not something I think you can blame M&H for. It's a huge problem to do with global inequality, wheeled out here as a stick to beat them with.

They don't have to perpetuate it though. If they were true humanitarians or philanthropists then you do things differently.

Anyone heard of the Edhi Foundation? A true philanthropist and humanitarian.

I’m thinking we are doing them a favour - I’m sure they declined the Oscars after their PR minions sampled public reactions from online forums, MN and this thread being an esteemed example. 😏

You’re welcome, Harry! 🧐

LaM

Does it break down there, though?

I think so. Vultures here are getting rid of waste they aren't making it worse and encouraging its production.

If the vultures want to get to the bare bones of the truth?

The thread is fueled by the DM and gossip sites. Investigative journalists get to the 'bare bones' - this thread is mainly about trying to find new sticks to beat someone who's got under the skin of the posters here.

--

And even if it isn't, that's what Monty Python was about - moving the boundaries of what humour is, as they did with Life of Brian.

And this is pure delusion! You think you're pushing the boundaries of humour?! WTAF? It's a few in-jokes while you bitch about M&H.

Vultures here areN'T getting rid of waste they ARE making it worse and encouraging its production.

oops, for correction and emphasis

What I find sad is that probably 90% of this and the other threads is posters having a go at each other. Can’t we just play nicely children.

rocking - I agreed with MyImaginary that the humour is Pythonesque - and even if it isn't, and it is as distasteful as peridito claims (which I take with a large pinch of salt - scraping the barrel as I said) then based on that it could be considered be pushing the boundaries, as Life of Brian was.

However, I don't think it's pushing the boundaries as it's not distasteful and I think peridito was over-egging the cake.

You're wrong, Rocking, sorry but you are.

This thread picks over the news and gossip as it appears. Posters speculate on the information presented, some of it turns out to be true and some of it untrue, or exaggerated. but some elements are undeniable fact.

H&M DID attend the JPMorgan event, for example.

They HAVE moved to Canada (as was predicted on these very threads and their predecessors for months based on DM and blind gossip stories).

It's not for you to say what is or isn't true, just because you don't like the source.

As far as humour is concerned, no-one is saying this is a source of ground breaking comedy, but the wit of many posters makes me smile and I appreciate their contributions. Rather that than pages and pages of po faced whingeing.

How’s about this (don’t say I didn’t predict it)?

In time, H&M come back into the RF fold. They continue doing whatever their plans are for now. Every dime they earn goes into their foundation, which distributes it all - 100% of is minus overheads - amongst those in need in the areas of concern their Foundation has shone a light on. Every single penny.

In return, the british taxpayer pays all their costs, to the standard Harry is used to.

I think that’s a fair and equitable trade. What do you think?

Why should we pay for them if they’re not working Royals.
They can fund themselves and donate the rest to charity.

It seems fair, but it doesn’t fit with their profiles, especially Meghan’s.

I’ve said some threads ago that nothing in her life indicates she ever goes back - she’s always rushing forward to the next thing or person. It’s a good quality in business, but a serious liability in (and for) the RF.

Terry was very sweet, very clever and very posh. A kind man and then he left his family for a woman half his age. He did upset a few of the Pythons and it was really only Michael Palin who stuck by him on a regular basis s. He had another child who is only about 10 and sadly will not have enjoyed the benefit of Terry in his prime as dementia set in.

For those of you who say that H is a naughty boy is in bad taste, the Pythons revelled in bad taste.

Here is the transcript of Graham Chapman’s eulogy delivered by John Cleese. Fry in Hell.

Here is the Mirror article about Terry’s funeral. You might appreciate it.

7salmons it's a nice idea but fraught with difficulties I'm afraid.

Your model gives them freedom to choose how they make their money away from the scrutiny and control of BP.

If the British taxpayer is picking up the tab I think we might prefer some sort of reassurance that they were under quite strict supervision.

There's no guarantee their money making schemes will be above reproach and compatible with royal status. They haven't been very good at picking them so far.

Thank you so much, Tumnus for posting that information about Terry. I think he would definitely approve of the thread title.

That's a lovely photo of him too. He was a very handsome chap when he was young!

FizzyLimes yes they can fund themselves and donate the rest. Isn’t that what they’re “working towards” (financial independence)? Trouble is that the foundation would fund a murky world of multiple residences, eye-wateringly high expenses, leaving who knows how little for the charities they’d be advertising themselves as supporting. I mean, look what happened to Camilla Batmamgeilidjh. While far from transparent, at least there’s a pretense of it with the RF’s accounts.

Or, if they return to being working Royals, everything that they earn is donated. We only pay expenses which, let’s be honest, we’re already paying. The Duchy of Cornwall hardly exists through the hard graft of Prince Charles.

So the trade is that the British taxpayer funds them, and in return has a full, working royal family (tourism, standing in the world, whatever other benefits monarchists see). The uber wealthy give to the Sussex Foundation to enhance their own profiles, and the beneficiaries of the Sussex Foundation receive.

Everything depends on the numbers, but to listen to H&M, you’d think that every £1 spent by the British taxpayer would result in many more £s in charitable donations to the Foundation’s beneficiaries.

Are you saying that the British taxpayer should fund only working Royals, and the working Royals should only benefit British citizens/ residents/ taxpayers? That all the money should be redistributed within the UK?

I think I'm a definition of a philanthropist. For 2.5 years I have co-founded, run, managed a charity for no salary and no expenses. In that time I've raised over £200k.

If I had £34m or whatever the figure is in the bank, I could have donated £5m of it and probably cured the disease I was working for. Sadly, I have about 34p in the bank, so had to do it the hard way.

Tbh I think that makes me just a little bit better than H&M.

myimaginary

You’re right. And this is always the problem: who decided anything Edward or Andrew or Charles chose to do was ok? Is there an approval committee? Perhaps there is.

So far, the causes H&M have chosen have been in tune with the RF’s other work: Sentebale, mental health reform, Invictus, empowerment of women and young girls.

It’s a matter of trust. The organisational documents of the Foundation would have to spell out what the Foundation is for. The RF would have to approve it (or not).

The RF already consorts with the most unsavory types. It’s traded favours since the beginning of its existence over a thousand years ago. (It’s done a lot, lot, lot worse than that).

So far, the causes H&M have chosen have been in tune with the RF’s other work: Sentebale, mental health reform, Invictus, empowerment of women and young girls.

This is very true. So the risk is not the causes they choose to support, but how they do it in practice. What proportion of their financial rewards will go directly to good causes? If they are working through a charitable entity, how will they be remunerated?

While they are no longer part of the royal family this probably doesn't need to be our concern - except that they should take on the cost of their own security as any other celebrity would.

If they intend using the Duke and Duchess brand I think we do legitimately have an interest, and the more I think about it, the more I think HMQ didn't go far enough in letting them keep and use that title.

What sticks in my throat and I’m sure a lot of people’s is the statement regarding working towards financial independence. My god, they have more money than probably all of us put together. It is the sheer self importance and expectation levels that offend me.