Scrap the royal family and with it the outdated traditions and class structure it upholds.

Then tax Beckham half of all money he's ever made backdated and leave him and his family with the remaining few hundred million so he can dress up like a knight at home if he wants.

Beckham has a knighthood he just don't wear it, that's why he has four kids

Beckham has done good things in order to be rewarded in the way he wants. Example; He gave his wages from PSG to a Paris children's charity, so that he'd get a knighthood.

------------------------------------------

He 'donated' his wages to charity (in actual fact PSG 'donated' a sum of money, probably relative to his wage demands for a few months, with Beckham receiving no 'salary' from PSG). However he took the proceeds from PSG merchandise with his name on for the duration of his stay at PSG. This had a tax rate of about 22%, in comparison to his salary, which would have been taxed somewhere between 40-50% in France. So he more than likely benefited financially, even if the income from merchandising was significantly less than his proposed salary, which I don't think it was.

Would've made more sense to put a link to the story you're on about rather than the wiki for Knight. Which is a bit odd. Not everyone reads the tabloids and I had to google "beckham wants a knighthood" to know what you're on about.

The snippets I read said something about he should sort out his tax if he wants a highthood, which sounds reasonable to me. Also, I'm not sure why actions for a french charity should earn him a British honour though.

Tbh, Knighthoods are given to enough ethically inept spacccers throughout history that it has undermined the whole thing.

Sir Saville arise.

Or Sir Fred Goodwin, or Sir Phillip Green?

Yep just donate enough money to a political party, or alternatively go to public school and work as a permanent secretary in the civil service for a bit. Job done.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yeah I agree. The action itself is more important than the motive. If someone does good for charity for 'bad' reasons it's no different to people doing good for charity for 'good' reasons. Good for charity is still done and people still get helped regardless.

comment by Cesc + Costa - The Spanish Duo (U21341)
posted 15 minutes ago
Yeah I agree. The action itself is more important than the motive. If someone does good for charity for 'bad' reasons it's no different to people doing good for charity for 'good' reasons. Good for charity is still done and people still get helped regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Plenty of people work far harder for charity and invest far more with no or little thanks or recognition. It's wrong for him to then receive recognition for 'his charity work' because he's a famous face and he's pushing as many buttons as possible behind the scenes to try and achieve it.

I'm not saying he should receive recognition, I'm saying people shoildnt give him shiiit because he's doing charity work because he wants recognition. He's still doing charity work and he's still helping people at the end of the day.

comment by Cesc + Costa - The Spanish Duo (U21341)
posted 21 seconds ago
I'm not saying he should receive recognition, I'm saying people shoildnt give him shiiit because he's doing charity work because he wants recognition. He's still doing charity work and he's still helping people at the end of the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, fair enough. Would be good to know exactly what his 'charity work' entails (and that of other 'celebs' that front various campaigns).

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

It's a bit like giving a homeless dude a twenny note, posting a video of it to your Facebook wall, then whispering in his ear "by the way I couldn't give less of a 5hit about you pal" as you walk off.

you still gave him a twenty though. That hasn't changed.

comment by Cornelius Oofterom (U15867)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
Beckham has done good things in order to be rewarded in the way he wants. Example; He gave his wages from PSG to a Paris children's charity, so that he'd get a knighthood.

------------------------------------------

He 'donated' his wages to charity (in actual fact PSG 'donated' a sum of money, probably relative to his wage demands for a few months, with Beckham receiving no 'salary' from PSG). However he took the proceeds from PSG merchandise with his name on for the duration of his stay at PSG. This had a tax rate of about 22%, in comparison to his salary, which would have been taxed somewhere between 40-50% in France. So he more than likely benefited financially, even if the income from merchandising was significantly less than his proposed salary, which I don't think it was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Such a staged and self-serving gesture knowing full well the tax benefits of it anyway. Why not just shut up and take home a minimal salary if you want to do something good instead of asking for exorbitant wages only for them to be paid elsewhere?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I think SAF was nominated by Bliar for a knighthood as he was a big donor to the Labour Party and not really football related although that would have been given as the 'official' reason.
In Becks case , I suspect the pushing is being done by a Lady wannabee