If all else fails

Jul 18 2014
Jun 30 2014

kat-howard:

dbvictoria:

Shakespearean insults, with cats.

7 more here.

I did not realize how very perfect cats were at delivering Shakespeare’s insults until now.

(via thegreattribblehunt)

80,772 notes

Jun 29 2014
+
May 26 2014
May 25 2014

Unbridled, seething rage.

So the UK’s Education minister has removed To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men and other American Classics from the GCSE (Age15-16 Exams) curriculum.

He has done this it seems because they are not British.

I am so angry.

May 20 2014

rainbowthundercunt:

I didn’t even wait for all the gifs to load before I reblogged this…

(Source: neuroticpaint, via thegreattribblehunt)

193,553 notes

May 14 2014
Apr 27 2014
antnorwe:

inothernews:

bluesigma:

inothernews:

I guess the person who made this doesn’t fully realize that the British for some reason really do still have a(n albeit neutered and spayed) monarchy that is built on exactly this sort of elitist bullshit.

really? because last i looked, they’re just figureheads who have no sort of power, and future monarchs that spend more time helping the public than any politician or previous royal ever has.

Hey thanks for playing.

The Queen


I have a lot of time for you and your opinions, however on this occasion I feel I must respectfully disagree with you. Regardless of the ‘elitist bullshit’ that permeates through all of the higher eschelons of societies world wide (even in the ‘beacon’ of the free world), our monarchy is a massive source of revenue. According to this the estimated revenue from the Royal Wedding of William and Kate was £610 MILLION and the Monarchy is a continued tourism multiplier for the UK.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with the intricate details of how the monarchy is funded a quick run down would be this:There exists a property portfolio called the Crown Estate, currently valued at £8.1 billion generating profit of £240.2 million per annum. Before 1760 it was under the sole control of the Crown itself however in a deal between George III and Parliament, in exchange for removal of responsibility for funding the civil government, forgiveness of all crown debt and of his personal debt and an annual stipend George surrendered all revenue in perpetuity to HM Treasury. At the time this was probably considered a bum deal for Parliament as it was mostly rural land and not generating much income. But in a rare case of foresight, that land and property has increased in value exponentially. The monarchy is now funded based on a value equal to 15% of the revenue of those Crown Estates (whereas previously it was a stipend from Parliament called ‘The Civil List’).You might argue that the origin of this land may be in dispute, but a lot of it was purchased or gained through legal means. If you’d like to argue the case that land taken from people isn’t their property on some moral level, then I’d be happy to hear your views on the treatment of Native Americans by your early government.
This is all aside from the fantastic charity work that they do, and using their titles and public image as a way of furthering charitable causes - I imagine we wouldn’t have heard as much about the problem of landmines in Africa if it was being spearheaded by Diana Spencer.

Anthony puts the arguments very well, though there are a lot of cultural and social arguments surrounding the Royal Family, their ability to bring in revenue, particularly through tourism, is impressive. A great many of us in the UK are quite attached to them.

antnorwe:

inothernews:

bluesigma:

inothernews:

I guess the person who made this doesn’t fully realize that the British for some reason really do still have a(n albeit neutered and spayed) monarchy that is built on exactly this sort of elitist bullshit.

really? because last i looked, they’re just figureheads who have no sort of power, and future monarchs that spend more time helping the public than any politician or previous royal ever has.

Hey thanks for playing.

The Queen

I have a lot of time for you and your opinions, however on this occasion I feel I must respectfully disagree with you. Regardless of the ‘elitist bullshit’ that permeates through all of the higher eschelons of societies world wide (even in the ‘beacon’ of the free world), our monarchy is a massive source of revenue. According to this the estimated revenue from the Royal Wedding of William and Kate was £610 MILLION and the Monarchy is a continued tourism multiplier for the UK.

I’m not sure how familiar you are with the intricate details of how the monarchy is funded a quick run down would be this:

There exists a property portfolio called the Crown Estate, currently valued at £8.1 billion generating profit of £240.2 million per annum. Before 1760 it was under the sole control of the Crown itself however in a deal between George III and Parliament, in exchange for removal of responsibility for funding the civil government, forgiveness of all crown debt and of his personal debt and an annual stipend George surrendered all revenue in perpetuity to HM Treasury. At the time this was probably considered a bum deal for Parliament as it was mostly rural land and not generating much income. But in a rare case of foresight, that land and property has increased in value exponentially. The monarchy is now funded based on a value equal to 15% of the revenue of those Crown Estates (whereas previously it was a stipend from Parliament called ‘The Civil List’).

You might argue that the origin of this land may be in dispute, but a lot of it was purchased or gained through legal means. If you’d like to argue the case that land taken from people isn’t their property on some moral level, then I’d be happy to hear your views on the treatment of Native Americans by your early government.

This is all aside from the fantastic charity work that they do, and using their titles and public image as a way of furthering charitable causes - I imagine we wouldn’t have heard as much about the problem of landmines in Africa if it was being spearheaded by Diana Spencer.

Anthony puts the arguments very well, though there are a lot of cultural and social arguments surrounding the Royal Family, their ability to bring in revenue, particularly through tourism, is impressive. A great many of us in the UK are quite attached to them.

177 notes

Apr 17 2014

magictransistor:

Seven of Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji (富嶽三十六景 / Fugaku Sanjūrokkei), Katsushika Hokusai (1760–1849),

(via ohnorobohobo)

9,863 notes

Page 1 of 133