Anyone just watch DeepFake on Channel 4

Yes, that is the danger. Believing the evidence of your own eyes and ears used to be the antidote to being told a load of lies, but now the lies are piped straight into your brain. Virtual reality is now as lifelike than real life.

The Queen's deep fake may seem like a bit of fun but the programme threw up how deeply dangerous this technology is. You can no longer believe what you see and hear, and this has never happened before. Through social media it can be used for deception on a global scale and this is happening already. The only way to combat this is for everyone to know about it and be aware of it, and we can only hope the word gets out to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Thanks to this thread I just watched the Alternative Christmas Message on All4.
I really can't see what anyone would complain about, I thought it was very restrained and even, one might say, affectionate. It did pose interesting questions along the lines of "How much of what we see can we believe?". I look forward to watching Deep Fakes.

To get back to the original subject, which is 'deep fake' there is a programme on Channel 4 tonight at 6.05pm 'Deep Fakes: Can you Trust Your Eyes' which might shed some light on this disturbing new technology. The danger is that you may be tricked into thinking what you see is real, and this could be used for all sorts of deceptions.

The cost of the president of Ireland.

The Office of the President cost the Irish taxpayer over €3.5m last year.

Áras an Uachtaráin has published an annual review of the work and scope of the office - covering the first year of President Michael D Higgins' second term.

I suspec that once a change is made to a presidential system and all the costs are totted up, direct and incidental, the ultimate cost will be about the same. However, if that is the "will of the people" it will happen. So be it.

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £345m
The monarchy is expensive, very expensive. Of course it wouldn't matter if it were free - the cost to our democracy would still be too high - but when the palace tells you it's "value-for-money", don't believe them. We could get much better for far less.

A symptom of a bigger problem
The huge waste and extravagance of the monarchy is a symptom of the main problem: the palace is totally unaccountable and is able to operate with a far greater degree of secrecy than any other part of the state. It also clearly has considerably lobbying clout within government, which explains why the government hasn't cracked down on royal spending.

Read the report

All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually.

Royal finances reform charter
Republic's royal finances reform charter proposes the following simple reforms, to improve accountability, transparency and fairness in royal finances and to appropriately assign public funds to the Treasury.

Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy - including an annual salary for the Queen - to be managed and reported on by a government department, not Buckingham Palace.
All security costs to be made transparent and accountable.
All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities.
The institution of the monarchy, and all members of the royal household, to be required to abide by the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals.
The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to be fully investigated by parliament with a view to transferring them into public ownership, with all revenue going to the Treasury.
The Crown Estate to be renamed 'the National Estate' and its status clarified through amendment of the Crown Estate Act.

Agree with you Bluecat A president would cost a fraction of what this family cost.

We do NOT support an entire Royal Family. We support the monarch and their spouse, because the spouse is an integral part of the liason with other heads of state which a head of state performs. We supported their dependent children, of course, but the Queen's children are now all grown up.

"The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 came into effect on 1 April 2012. It sets the single grant supporting the monarch’s official business, enabling The Queen to discharge her duties as Head of State. It meets the central staff costs and running expenses of Her Majesty’s official household – including official receptions, investitures and garden parties. It also covers maintenance of the Royal Palaces in England and the cost of travel to carry out royal engagements such as opening buildings and other royal visits.

In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government which for 2018-19 was £343.5 million. The Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 is £85.9 million which is 25% of £343.5 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated.

In accordance with the Civil List Act 1952, HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh receives a Parliamentary annuity of £359,000. Although, the Duke of Edinburgh has stepped back from public official duties, he still requires office support for non-public official duties. The Duke of Edinburgh is Patron, President or a member of over 780 organisations, with which he continues to be associated, although he no longer attends engagements.

The Sovereign Grant used to be the Civil List, which was set up in exchange for the income from the Crown estate, which itself was, centuries ago, once the private property of the monarch, from which the king or queen paid the officers who assisted them in running the country. The Crown Estate is now held in trust for the nation, which keeps 75% of the income, giving 25% to the monarch as the Sovereign Grant. So the country gets three times as much from the Crown property as the the queen does, and from her 25% she pays lots of salaries and does lots of entertaining and admin and so on. The Sovereign Grant business accounts are scrutinised by Parliament.

So what is the job description that would advertise the job of President? Since so many people object to the head of state having private wealth, would it include that they must donate their bank balance (inherited, or earned before they applied for this position) to be used for charitable purposes? That wouldn't be very popular.

What proportion of their time would be officially allocated to reading state documents before signing? because it is very dangerous to sign anything you haven't read. If it was signed and became law without the head of state reading and understanding it, an unscrupulous politician could slip anything at all past.

What else would have to be in place, both for recruiting a president and limiting their power? They have to be more than a charming host.

The entertaining etc that the queen and the working members of the Royal Family do and a president would take over is paid for out of the sovereign grant, which is granted to her to pay for the expenses of state. I don't imagine she creams it off for her personal wealth. That, as you said, is inherited - just as whatever your own parents left to you was inherited - it is private wealth.

The Queen pays tax. In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis.

A president would have to live somewhere suitable for the job. Buckingham Palace doesn't belong to the queen, it belongs to the state, and she is required to live there (a tied house) so the state is responsible for its upkeep. If it needed a lot done to it, it was because the landlord neglected it. She would much rather live in one of her own houses than in that antique and uncomfortable mausoleum.

A president (or his wife) if they had to live there, would probably modernise and redecorate as soon as they moved in -maybe at state expense, perhaps at his/her own expense, throwing out historic heirlooms in favour of crass opulency (like the hideous stuff the Trumps have done in the White House) which would date by the time the next president was elected, so they would want it all changed too.

People always ask, in terms of horror, whether we would prefer to have an elected Head of State.

Well, why not? Most countries have managed to move away from having royal families, so why can't we? We could keep the position of Prime Minister as the leader of our government and have a figurehead President to do the Queen's job, ie represent us on overseas trips, greet visiting VIPs, open new enterprises and visit factories, etc. As it's not a particularly onerous job, we could pick the candidate on whatever grounds we choose - charm and charisma, maybe - and get it done at a fraction of the cost of supporting an entire royal family.

It is stated that charities do not benefit from royal Patronage Ordinary people do more to help support charities.

How did she come upon her wealth state funding and inheritance passed on not taxed.
Queen receives over 80 million Sovereign Grant, which can never go down always up, this massive increase was to refurbish Buckingham Palace. The RF are given money for upkeep of state homes why did they let it get into a disrepair? Why didnt they keep BP open all year like other famous residences around the world helps pay for themselves as for instance The Vatican palace where the Pope resides? PPhilip gets 400,000 a year too don't know why he gets that.

She has millions in off shore tax havens.

There are many richer people than her in Britain. She had an estimated personal net worth of $530 million (£396.08 milliom) as of 2016
2017 British billionaires list by Forbes magazine
World rank Name Net worth (USD) Source of wealth
18 Jim Ratcliffe 32.0 billion oil and chemicals
64 Hinduja family 19.8 billion diversified
65 David and Simon Reuben 15.3 billion investments, real estate
250 Ian and Richard Livingstone 5.8 billion real estate
269 Joe Lewis 5.6 billion investments
315 Bruno Schroder 5.1 billion banking
324 David and Frederick Barclay 5.0 billion media, retail
324 Richard Branson 5.1 billion Virgin Group Ltd
339 Philip and Tina Green 4.8 billion fashion retail
359 Laurence Graff 4.6 billion diamond jewellery
367 Clive Calder 4.5 billion record label
367 Michael Platt 4.5 billion hedge funds
414 James Dyson 4.2 billion vacuums
522 Denise Coates 3.6 billion online gambling
660 Andrew Currie 3.0 billion chemicals
660 John Reece 3.0 billion chemicals
693 Anthony Bamford 2.9 billion construction equipment
693 Bernie Ecclestone 2.9 billion Formula One
717 Peter Hargreaves 2.8 billion financial services
782 Michael Ashley 2.6 billion sports retailing
782 Robert Miller 2.6 billion retail
867 Sunil Vaswani 2.4 billion diversified
896 Bernard Lewis 2.3 billion fashion retailer
896 Farhad Moshiri 2.3 billion diversified
939 John Caudwell 2.2 billion mobile phones
973 Christopher Hohn 2.1 billion hedge fund
1030 Maritsa Lazari 2.0 billion real estate
1030 Tom Morris 2.0 billion retail
1098 Eddie and Sol Zakay 1.9 billion real estate
1161 John Coates 1.8 billion online gambling
1161 Mark Coombs 1.8 billion finance
1161 Stephen Rubin 1.8 billion sports apparel
1290 Lord AshCroft 1.6 billion security
1376 Charles Dunstone 1.5 billion mobile phones
1376 David Harding 1.5 billion finance
1376 Anthony Langley 1.5 billion manufacturing
1376 Hilton Schlosberg 1.5 billion energy drinks
1376 Ian Wood 1.5 billion energy services
1468 Alex Beard 1.4 billion mining, commodities
1468 Richard Desmond 1.4 billion publishing
1468 Alan Howard 1.4 billion hedge funds
1468 John Whittaker 1.4 billion real estate
1567 Jasminder Singh 1.3 billion hotels
1678 Raghuvinder Kataria 1.2 billion diversified
1795 Ayman Asfari 1.1 billion oil services
1795 Arnold Clark 1.1 billion Arnold Clark Automobiles
1795 Mark Dixon 1.1 billion office real estate
1795 Mohammed Ibrahim 1.1 billion communications
1795 Kenneth Lo 1.1 billion textiles
1940John Bloor 1.0 billion real estate, manufacturing
1940Saket Burman 1.0 billion consumer goods
1940 Philip Day 1.0 billion clothing retail
1940 David McMurtry 1.0 billion manufacturing
1940 Simon Nixon 1.0 billion price comparison website
Her charitable giving is not published, but as patron of over 600 charities she almost certainly makes sizeable donations to them, as well as attracting other donations from wealthy people who wish to link to her charities.

Like it or not, the RF is here to stay. The line of succession is secure for generations to come so, unless we have a revolution, the British public will never be asked to elect a head of state. Still, if people choose to believe in, for example, the mystical healing powers of a royal visit, then so be it. My hope is that the future King William will cut back on the strict rules about curtseying, bowing and general toadying and bring the RF into the 21st century.

I am totally with Grany on this. One of the richest persons in the world, waited on hand and foot day and night. Being ridiculed occasionally is a very small price for her to pay. But still not IMO, worth the money we lavish on this family.

Never put a foot wrong eh!!! Only need to go back to Diane's death to see a different media perspective of her!!!!. Such small memories.

I’m with Grany on this one, frankly.

Persons likely to put themselves forward for the position are not necessarily those who deserve it. They are more likely to be those desiring political and social fame and power - and unlikely to be content to refrain from interfering in political decisions and confine themselves to reading all the verbiage in the red boxes before signing their consent, (which the queen has done through her many years reign, so that she knows more Parliamentary history than most Prime Ministers)

‘ choose a more deserving person to be elected as our head of state’ ?

How on earth will that work then? A ‘deserving Politician’ ?

Someone plucked from obscurity, but found to be deserving?

Better the devil you know..........

What would you expect a head of state to actually do in their daily working lives, to show how "deserving" they are, Grany ? A genuine question.

It's a pity they don't complain about the queen and her family living in lots of homes palaces castles at the tax payers expense. Spending public money day in day out on their travels. Days out paid for by local councils.
Massive around the clock security bill for all their homes.

Though in fact several do complain about all these things. What service does she provide?

The Queen hasn't put a foot wrong in all these years granted, as everything is done for her.
After she goes will public still want to carry on with this one family? Or choose a more deserving person to be elected as our Head of State? The RF is a joke

There have been a huge number of complaints so I watched to see how it was done and what it contained. Firstly, it is deeply concerning because such technology in the wrong hands can be very dangerous. It is deceptive and will spread fake news. Secondly, it shows how far society has fallen in ridiculing the Queen, the most respected person in the country, who has steadfastly served the nation for 70 years.

Just watched it. It was really well done!