It is confirmed then- the royals really do see any bills before they are enacted

I'd never heard of Queen's consent before, suspect most like me had only heard of the Royal assent. They've got it all stitched up haven't they
 
I have always been a republican, I don't mind having a symbolic royal family, but they should not be the entity they are now. Majority land owners through birth and privilege does not make them any more of a person than the rest of us. Their estate should be given to the state and their entitlement stripped away, palaces left as tourist spots and a sizable chunk of their wealth put into the public purse as restitution for millennia of theft from their subjects.

Just one mans option for what its worth, and have similar opinions about the lords and any hereditary title's and landowners in general. All of this stuff does nothing but reinforce their right to rule and perpetuate economic inequality.
 
MolteniArcore said:
So the right to buy is ok for Housing Associations but not for the Prince!?!
Click to expand...
The right to buy was a bad idea from conception execution. What the selling off of social housing stock has to do with a prince whose family own over half the land in the country is a mystery to me though.
 
Trug said:
to make sure that they can keep on screwing the taxpayer

Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
I reported this about 5 years ago on the old board. Was told it was nonsense.

They rig the deck in their favour financially, then they get laws created to protect their ability to use discretionary powers. There will be a new law introduced to stop this kind of info from being visible in the public domain, just like after the black spider letters where they suddenly gained an exemption from freedom of information act. I pointed out at that time that it was both an admittance of guilt, and an admittance that they wield really strong powers to corrupt and manipulate in their favour.
 
67m of us own about 5% of the land, 1.4% is crown, but then further more in that aristocrasy bit is their own land. They own as much as the rest of us put together.

1656488715525.png
 
JonnyHistory said:
The right to buy was a bad idea from conception execution. What the selling off of social housing stock has to do with a prince whose family own over half the land in the country is a mystery to me though.
Click to expand...

He was lobbying to change the law so his tenants couldn't buy their houses off him.
 
MolteniArcore said:
He was lobbying to change the law so his tenants couldn't buy their houses off him.
Click to expand...
Ah, well of that I am not shocked. They are self serving and always have been.

I am not in favour of right to buy in general but the fact he was only wanting to protect his properties speaks volumes.
 
JonnyHistory said:
Ah, well of that I am not shocked. They are self serving and always have been.

I am not in favour of right to buy in general but the fact he was only wanting to protect his properties speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

I certainly am not in favour of the right to buy scheme when it comes to local authority housing / housing associations but I would be all for a scheme where you can buy your rental from a private landlord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top