How much does the Royal Family cost the UK?

The British Royal Family is probably the most well known family in the world. Simply by looking at the television ratings of the most recent Royal Wedding and the Diamond Jubilee, it's clear that people around the world go nuts for British Royalty. Saying that, how much do the Royals cost the British taxpayer? Is it really worth keeping them around?

The simple answer is yes, it's actually very profitable.

Firstly it's important to note that the Royal Family received £30 million from the British taxpayer in 2011, significantly lower than the £35 million received in 2010 as a result of austerity measures. While not an amount to be sniffed at, £30 million for the upkeep of the Royal Family is pretty good value for money. To help explain why, we need to go all the way back to King George III. George III wasn't terribly good with money and despite owning massive amounts of land, he racked up huge debts. He decided to surrender the profits from his land to Parliament for the remainder of his life in return for a fixed salary and his debts removed. This agreement between Parliament and the Royal Family has continued to this very day with every Monarch since George III voluntarily agreeing to surrender the profit from the 'Crown Estate' in exchange for living and state expenses.

The Crown Estate today is one of the most value property portfolios in the UK with an estimated worth of £7 billion generating profits of roughly £240 million during the last tax year. Once you subtract the £30 million of taxpayer money, the Crown Estate made the UK £210 million. It's a pretty good deal.

Another way the Royal Family contributes to the UK economy is through tourism. While difficult to measure exactly it's estimated the Royal brand is worth roughly £40 billion, adding around £7 billion annually to an ailing economy. To look at a specific example, it's been estimated that the Diamond Jubilee celebrations were worth an additional £2.4 billion to the UK economy. Even if you subtract the £1.2 billion lost through the extra bank holiday the Jubilee still turned a pretty large profit, hours of a miserable looking Queen on television really was worth it.

I don't consider myself a Royalist in any sense, I'm simply interested in the bottom line. With the United Kingdom's finances in pretty poor condition it would seem keeping the Royal Family is in everyone's best interest.


As always, opinions welcome.

Nevin Spence

Corinthians 5:6-8: So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

I wish I had faith, a quality Nevin Spence had in abundance. His unwavering belief in a higher being was something I respected a great deal, contrary to what our constant bickering may have suggested. 

Nevin had an answer for every argument I threw at him, annoyingly I couldn't provide a response for the majority. When I spoke of what I deemed to be his blind faith he replied "Who said it's blind? God is as real to me as anything else", I've never wished to be wrong so much. 

In a society were people are judged and criticized at the drop of a hat, Nevin was one of the exceptions. I can't recall him ever saying or doing anything intended to hurt the slightest of feelings, he was without a doubt the most upstanding person I've had the pleasure of knowing. I can only dream of being half the man he was, a true gent. 

He joked last week that our debate on religion would be settled by the second coming or death, I never considered he'd have his answer within days. I hope with every fibre of my being I'm wrong and he's looking down as I write, safe at home.

I'll miss you mucker, take care.

Memories and stories you may have of Nevin would be well received in the comments section, RIP.  

Illegal downloading, will you end up in court?

As it stands the UK is roughly two years away from the implementation of the Digital Economy Act. The Act will hope to give the movie, music and television industries long sought after protection against online piracy. Under the Act ISPs will be required to send warning letters to those suspected of illegally downloading copyright material. If the customer receives three letters in a 12 month period their personal details may be passed on to the copyright holders enabling them to begin legal proceedings.

It's almost impossible to say whether the Act will significantly reduce online piracy. The possibility of ending up in a court room may be enough for some to start parting with cash in return for digital media. Although for the persistent offenders of Act, how likely is it that they'll see the inside of a court room? Using France as a reference point, it would seem that ending up in court is pretty unlikely.

In France rights holders claimed three million IP addresses had illegally downloaded copyright material over the past two years. Hadopi, France's anti-piracy agency only deemed one million of those worthy of receiving a letter of warning, 10% of those went on to receive a second and a minuscule 0.34% received a third. Hadopi was only able to bring 14 people, or 0.0012% of those who received a first warning letter to court. In my opinion bringing 14 people to court is hardly a victory for rights holders, especially as Hadopi is run at a cost of 12 million euros a year.

It could be argued that Hadopi is reducing online piracy evident by the fact 90% of those who received a first warning did not receive a second. I believe however this is a result of offenders taking more care in a bid to fly under the radar. It's pretty simple to download through a proxy server, if you wish you can even pay companies a monthly fee to encrypt your traffic to the point it's almost impossible to determine the material you're downloading.

It would seem come 2014 consumers illegally downloading in the UK will have three options available:

1. Stop downloading illegal material and start parting with cash.

2. Subscribe to a service like BT Guard and download through a proxy server.

3. Ignore the warning letters if they come and face a possible day in court.

I'd advise taking option number two, it's by far the cheapest and almost guaranteed to keep you under the radar of rights holders.


As always, thoughts welcome.

Oscar Pistorius, sour grapes or at a disadvantage?

So much of the Olympic and Paralympic coverage has been centered around the 'Blade Runner', Oscar Pistorius. He was the first double amputee to compete at the Olympics and in no way was he just making up the numbers, reaching the 400m semi-finals and 4x400m final. Considering the fact he competes with, and beats able-bodied athletes it's understandable that he's always a favourite for any race he enters limited to athletes with below knee amputations. Any athlete who beats Pistorius would be deemed to have caused a substantial upset, enter Alan Oliveira.

Oliveira beat Pistorius over 200m in the T44 final, unfortunately Oliveira's run was over shadowed by Pistorius' comments moments after. Pistorius stated "I can't compete with Alan's stride length......it's very clear that the guys have got very long strides", firstly this just isn't the case. Pistorius took 92 strides (49 in the first 100m, 43 in the second), Oliveira took 98 (52 in the first 100m, 46 in the second). Pistorius' stides are actually longer than Oliveira's, it's Oliveira who can't compete with Pistorius' stride length.

Secondly Pistorius stated "the guys' legs are unbelievably long", an issue Pistorius says he brought up with the IPC weeks before the games. The IPC has a formula to limit the length of blades based on what they estimate the athlete's height would be if they had both legs. Oliveira's blades are completely legal, falling within the measurements allowed by the IPC. Pistorius could actually lengthen his blades if he wished so I'm not entirely sure why he believes Oliveira's blade length is unfair.

Interestingly Pistorius also said "the guys are just running ridiculous times", despite the fact all these 'guys' are running slower times than Pistorius himself. Oliveira's winning time was 0.15 seconds slower than the world record Pistorius had set the previous day. Pistourius' comments would suggest he believes anyone who can run nearly as fast as him to be running a 'ridiculous time'. Sounds like sour grapes to me, especially considering Pistorius' trademark has been to come from behind and win by 'ridiculous' margins.

Another point to consider is how 'slow' Pistorius ran rather than how 'fast' Oliveira did. Pistorius covered the 200m distance 0.28 seconds slower than he did the previous day, 21.30 seconds (a new world record) compared to 21.58. Were the comments following the race a result of disappointment from a tired athlete? It's entirely possible, Pistorius running a much slower final would certainly suggest that. Let's not forget Oliveira has been able to prepare specifically for the Paralympics while Pistorius has been competing far more over the last month as well as dealing with substantially more media commitments.

Pistorius will always be remembered as the 'Blade Runner', the first double amputee to compete at the Olympics. The moment he shared with Kirani James following the Olympic 400m semi-final will not be quickly forgotten, however it was only a matter of time before someone else reached the perch Pistorius has solely occupied for so long. The debate over regulating blades will continue and it's definitely something the IPC and IAAF need to investigate, as technology improves regulations need to be set to ensure a level playing field. The place for that debate however is not after a Paralympic final. Simply it takes the spotlight away from those competing and I would have thought Pistorius would know exactly how it feels to be discussed for your adherence to rules as opposed to your athletic achievements.

Sour grapes? Possibly. It's the first time I've seen Pistorius speak in that way although it's also the first time he's been beaten on a world stage, there are no other interviews in which to compare. I believe he was simply beaten by a better athlete last night and his inaccurate comments were a result of emotions running high and giving an interview without really thinking about the impact his words would have.

As always I'm interested to hear any other views points or opinions on the matter, it's seems likely this will be a topic of debate for some time.

How can a film 73 years old be re-released in high definition?

The UK is now just weeks away from turning off the analogue TV signal for good, digital it seems is the way forward. Digital TV requires less broadcast transmission power, enables more channels to be broadcast in a narrower frequency band and most important of all it can transmit higher resolutions. I'm pretty sure the average consumer doesn't care about frequency bands or broadcast power, although they probably do care about the quality of the picture they can receive. The majority of the UK will be able to receive at least 3 Freeview HD channels by late October 2012; BBC HD, BBC One HD and Channel 4 HD. Fast forward five years and it's pretty likely that every free to air channel will be broadcast in HD. However, what I found curious was seeing as we're only getting a handful of HD channels in 2012, how can Gone with the Wind be available to buy on blu-ray considering it was first released in 1939?

It turns out the answer is actually pretty simple, 35mm film.

35mm film has the ability to record at resolutions far higher than what we refer to today as HD (1920x1080 pixels), basically all you need to do is use a film scanner to sample the analogue image to a digital image. It's actually very similar to a scanner you may have in your home, it reads dots per inch thus giving the resolution. The actual resolution of 35mm film is the subject of much debate although it's high enough to scan images at roughly 8000x4000 pixels (8k), 16 times the resolution of blu-ray. It's generally accepted that 4k (4000x2000) is enough to restore older films, evident by the fantastic quality of older films available for home viewing.

I look forward to a day when screens capable of 8k resolutions can be mass produced at a reasonable cost for the average consumer. Unfortunately we're probably in for at least a two decade wait.

Is Armstrong telling the truth? 12 people who say otherwise

It's become abundantly clear over the past few days that the general public and more importantly the cycling world still seems to remain divided on whether Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France. To look at it in the simplest of terms, Lance is either lying or telling the truth. Personally I believe him to be a liar, however if Lance is telling the truth who then must be lying?

Floyd Landis, the man who started the ball rolling has arguably lost the most by coming forward. In speaking out against Lance he had to admit that he did dope during the 2006 Tour de France and as a result defrauded 1800 people out of half a million dollars through the fairness for Floyd fund. Landis agreed this week to repay the sum within three years in an attempt to avoid prison time. The former USPS rider spoke of Lance's EPO and testosterone use, how Lance had helped him obtain and use doping products, how he and Lance had received blood transfusions during races and how Lance used to boast about being powerful enough to have a 2001 positive for EPO covered up.

Tyler Hamilton told his story on the US show 60 minutes and in doing so he admitted doping to win a gold medal in Athens 2004. Despite testing positive for a blood transfusion Tyler had kept that gold medal because his B sample had been improperly stored. Tyler had been home and dry but his own personal guilt and a subpoena to testify before a grand jury during Lance's federal trial changed everything. He came clean, admitted doping and told how he'd seen Armstrong receive blood transfusions and inject himself with EPO.

Armstrong's former Masseuse Emma O'Reilly stated that she had lent him makeup to cover up needle marks, helped him dispose of syringes and picked up packages containing doping products. O'Reilly also told of how team officials had panicked over Armstrong's positive test for steroids during the 1999 tour, she explained how the team doctor had forged a backdated prescription for a steroid based cream for saddle sores.

Mike Anderson was a mechanic for Armstrong between 2002 and 2004, their relationship took a turn for the worse when Anderson discovered a box of Androstenedione while cleaning Armstrong's bathroom. Anderson was terminated soon after and refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

In 2006 Frankie and Betsy Andreu testified to have heard Armstrong tell doctors in 1996 that he had taken EPO, growth hormone and steroids. Their testimony was part of the SCA case against Armstrong, SCA didn't want to pay a $5 million bonus for Tour de France wins. Frankie Andreu also admitted to using EPO to prepare for the 1999 tour, Armstrong's first victory in the race. Andreu stated that he was introduced to doping in 1995 while riding for Armstrong's former Motorola team, he revealed that while he did not see Armstrong using PEDs at Motorola he was confident he was doping.

Greg Lemond was the first American to win the Tour de France and in the beginning a Lance fan. In 2001 Lemond learned that Lance was working with Michelle Ferrari, a sports trainer who famously once said EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice. Lemond stated that he was disappointed Lance was working with Ferrari, a month later Lemond issued an apology and said Lance's performances were the result of hard work and dedication. Three years later Lemond revealed that he had been forced to issue an apology after being threatened. Armstrong warned Lemond to keep quiet or he would find ten people to say that he had taken EPO and that he would destroy his relationship with Trek Bicycles. Lemond's own brand of bicycles were made by Trek and a breakdown of that relationship would have ruined a profitable business.

In addition to the seven aforementioned individuals numerous ex-teammates have given evidence to USADA, I don't want to speculate as to what they might have said however I'm sure the testimonies will emerge over time. Some of those ex-teammates include George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Jonathan Vaughters, Christian Van de Velde and David Zabriske. At the very least all five have either seen Armstrong take or discuss taking PEDs, otherwise I doubt they would be on USADA's witness list.

Here we have twelve individuals that according to Lance are lying, and telling a very complicated and coordinated lie at that. It just doesn't seem plausible to me and almost everyone of the 12 is in a worse position as a result of telling the truth. In my opinion it's largely why Lance has kept his doping secret quiet from the general public since 1999, what did people have to gain by speaking against him and telling the truth? This was a powerful man, someone who went for private bike rides with the US president and described himself as a friend of Nicolas Sarkozy. Greg Lemond is a good example of why people kept quiet, one phone call from Lance and he could have destroyed Greg's livelihood, honestly that's a man that I'd think twice about messing with.

Finally to all the Lance believers; you're free to think what you wish however I'd be interested to hear why you've decided to ignore these 12 individuals. Recovering from cancer and returning to professional sport is admirable but it doesn't make you a saint, it doesn't excuse defrauding millions of people.