Cabinet Applauds Smokescreen !!!
- Thread starter VFM Addict
- Start date
By that argument, no-one is allowed to own any land. All of the land in England has been killed over, repeatedly.
The lizard men forced the marriage to distract us from the impending taxis!
What are the Conservatives thinking
We just don't have enough kit kats to pay them.
Yes i agree,does not make it right does it,thats all i'mm saying..
Have you got a problem with people feeling good?
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
Neither really. That's why I did not make a statement but said it was a topic for debate. Opinions vary as the posts here show.
However, principles and morals are surely, or should be, timeless. Would the RF be allowed today to acquire land and wealth as they did then?
All I am really saying is how do you define the Crown Estate? Is it truly the RF's personally or is it logically and possibly ethically the State's? I'm undecided myself. Its a difficult conundrum not a million miles different from who's land truly is Israels? Bit like the Elgin Marbles argument too. How far to you take the arguments back into the past? I truly, truly don't know.
But what I do know is that there is no cut and dried answer either way. Therefore I recognise that it is a topic for debate where perhaps others see the world only in black and white rather than as it truly is, a continuum with endless shades of grey.
EDIT - Damn should have used a quote. The post I was replying to has vanished or been edited. Oh well I guess the above makes sense any way re Who's land is it.
However, principles and morals are surely, or should be, timeless. Would the RF be allowed today to acquire land and wealth as they did then?
All I am really saying is how do you define the Crown Estate? Is it truly the RF's personally or is it logically and possibly ethically the State's? I'm undecided myself. Its a difficult conundrum not a million miles different from who's land truly is Israels? Bit like the Elgin Marbles argument too. How far to you take the arguments back into the past? I truly, truly don't know.
But what I do know is that there is no cut and dried answer either way. Therefore I recognise that it is a topic for debate where perhaps others see the world only in black and white rather than as it truly is, a continuum with endless shades of grey.
EDIT - Damn should have used a quote. The post I was replying to has vanished or been edited. Oh well I guess the above makes sense any way re Who's land is it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
None whatsoever. I agree that the Cabinet would and should be pleased that the Country may get a Feel Good Factor. I'm pleased for W&K and for the Country. But as I have said earlier their reaction as reported by the PM far exceeded that which would be expected to originate from that alone. Did you and whoever you were with when you heard the news cheer as if your football team had just scored a goal and start banging the table? If you did not and if most people you know did not then it is logical to assume that the Cabinet perceived some significant personal benefit also in the announcement. I am somewhat surprised that so many of the usually intelligent peeps around here are not even open to such a possibility.
No it's nothing like who's land truly is Israels. I suggest you read up on some history. The glorious revolution, the accedence of parliament, the formation of Israel, and so on.
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
Boy oh boy. Calm done my friend or you will pop a blood vessel. Within the context that I used the analogy it was indeed similar. Because the context was that what is moral or correct changes dependent on where one draws the line. I see you did even mention the Elgin Marbles which clearly showed the thrust of the analogy.
I am quite happy to discuss history with you if you wish. But I do not see the point because we would arrive at the very same problem - Where do we draw the definitive line in the line of time as regards to what is right and what is wrong?
No but then I'm not closely linked to the royals, part of the government or on TV. It is a perfectly resonable response by such people.
To many CT and tin foil hat wearers.
No, your analogy was crap, much like most of what you've said in this thread. Your reference to the Elgin marbles was pointless, much like most of what you've said in this thread. Get your head out of the sand and stop wasting time with pointless conspiracy theories.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
But the Queen IS the state.
Have you even read our constituion?
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
May I suggest that if you are going to accuse me of claiming this was a conspiracy then you bother to read the thread. You expose yourself as somewhat incapable of even studying a thread let alone history.
I most clearly did not ever claim this was a conspiracy. I said in the op that the Cabinet couldn't believe their 'kin luck. Hardly something consistent with them having engineered the situation or it being a conspiracy. I also highlighted that on several occassions throughout the thread.
It appears on the evidence of your last post that clearly devoid of the capacity for logical arguments you now rely on that which is simply untrue. A common tactic of a bankrupt mind.
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
I'd be more than glad to. Perhaps you could help me. Can you point me to this Country's written constitution so that I may do that. Thanks in advance, mate.
I'd be more than glad to. Perhaps you could help me. Can you point me to this Country's written constitution so that I may do that. Thanks in advance, mate.
I'm fairly sure someone so capable as yourself can manage looking up our Parliamentary doctrine, Royal Prerogatives, Parliamentary constitutional conventions, statutes, laws, court judgements and treaties, rather than trying to catch someone out on an internet forum in a technicality. The lack of a codified or de facto constitutional document does not constitute, ahem, the lack of a constitution.
I think they rather did it as a matter of procedure.
As a counterpoint to your suggestion, imagine you were an MP there and that you thought it might be a good smokescreen for your government, would you cheer? I know I wouldn't.
The Crown Estate originates from a deal with (Mad) King George who did a deal with the Country as he was broke, the Crown Estate at the time was making very little 'profit'. It is not a 'Tax' it is GIVEN, it is money neither owned by the Monarch or the Govt. it belongs to the 'People', managed by a Board appointed by the Monarch, it is a legacy of Feudal times, don't be in any way fooled that this is a Tax freely given by the Queen.
MmmmKay...
If I could get the Govt./Country to pay me Rents of £210Million (The real amount will never be known to us peons BTW.) which would let me manage my £7Billion+ Portfolio (Again, you won't ever know the real figures..) without any costs to me, as long as I just give £210Million back to the people that paid it anyway, then err...yeah (It's a bloody good deal!!)
Lord Sugar does not receive free cash from the Tax Payer (He probably gets some from Grants and certain allowances but not anywhere near the amounts the Royals get.), or secret Tax breaks from the Treasury, his Security costs, property ownership/maintenance etc is all out of his own pocket.
A lot of the Royal 'Jobs' are a joke, Keeper of the Royal Ferret etc. People would still be employed when the Palaces and other Properties are Privatised and turned into Museums and Hotels or sold cheaply to Chinese/Russians as new Houses
I can't decipher what you're actually asking here? You seem to be agreeing with me that people saying that the Royals bring in huge Tourism revenue is ridiculous, which is what I basically said
Why are the UK Royals the most expensive Royal Heads of State to keep? Something like £44Million costs for State duties, compared to the Spanish Royals £7Million.
You'd only need a Spokesman/Woman, even the Prime Minister could act as one, hell, even Boris could do it.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I'd be more than glad to. Perhaps you could help me. Can you point me to this Country's written constitution so that I may do that. Thanks in advance, mate.
Look, just becuase our constitution isn't codified into one single article doesn't mean we don't have one. Stop being lazy and do some research.
I'll give you a starter for 10:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
Edit: - Platypus beat me to it, and did so in a much more eloquent manner I!
Last edited by a moderator: