To be a successful and contributing member of society...
Half of England is owned by < 1% of the population.
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
To be a successful and contributing member of society...
Soldato
Posting crap like this thread?
The thread is crap, but internet is still vital in todays world..
In the next 5-10 years you wont be able to operate a bank account, pay a bill or shop without travelling miles if you don't have internet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,546
Are you sure about that?
Would you say that Buckingham Palace is:
* A bloody huge estate
* A modest sized family house
* A bit smaller than your shed
We should be able to tell after that...
Soldato
A bloody huge estate.
On a side note, it is owned by the crown estate who donate over 70% of the revenue generated by all crown estate properties, windfarms etc to the british tax-payer, always makes me laugh when i see people who genuinley think we pay anything for the royal family (i know you aren't making that point).
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,546
I mean the reality. Obviously we have to stick to the rules, but how far does it go.
We all live on this planet, but were not all equal as this thread proves.
Soldato
Well, that is the reality. I don't think there's a .gov website that covers your version of it.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 157
Going back to the first post and the article saying if all the land was distributed evenly we would all have almost an acre.
Well what do they think 90 % of people will do when they get that acre.. They will sell it.
And who would buy it. Not the people the ''gentry'' that originally owned it. they will be broke from having there assets seiezed
Sovereign wealth funds from places like Saudia Arabia.. . china.. and Russian Oligarths will buy it.
Then those muppets in the Guardian along with the muppets that read it can all complain again in 10 years time when they next do a survey..
''Half of all land in England owned by overseas investors''
Well what do they think 90 % of people will do when they get that acre.. They will sell it.
And who would buy it. Not the people the ''gentry'' that originally owned it. they will be broke from having there assets seiezed
Sovereign wealth funds from places like Saudia Arabia.. . china.. and Russian Oligarths will buy it.
Then those muppets in the Guardian along with the muppets that read it can all complain again in 10 years time when they next do a survey..
''Half of all land in England owned by overseas investors''
Pretty much true as it is, who owns the people that owns the land?
Because they seem to enjoy selling off anything british to some foreign country or oligarch.
It is being sold off to foreign investors anyhow.
I seem to recall something like 1/3 of London is owned by overseas entities? Don't quote me on that tho; can't find a source.
e: https://www.businessinsider.com/london-map-of-property-owned-by-foreigners-2015-9?r=US&IR=T
No one owns people, at least not legally.
Tbh there's not much difference when people are forced to pay >55% of their wages on rents. Often for accommodation which is - as acknowledged by the UK govt - not fit for human habitation.
Caporegime
I own noobs on call of duty, does that count?
There is a massive difference and regardless he’s not talking about people in that situation but rather landowners.
Hahah yeah they are SOOOO generous to us plebs arent they!
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
Because You asked a question, I answered and asked you for advice and I (mistakenly) thought you might answer.
My opinion is that nobody has a natural entitlement to ownership of large tracts of land which are often unused.
I am not entirely convinced that an elderly couple are really entitled to ownership of estates in Sandringham (20,000 acres in Norfolk), Balmoral (50,000 acres in Scotland), Windsor Castle (13 acres in Berkshire) and Buckingham Palace (a mere 40 acres but bang smack in the middle of London) while housing is in such short supply.
As to people (or companies) who own huge tracts of entirely barren moorland just so that they can shoot birds - the targets are perhaps wrong. If the land cannot be used for agriculture, perhaps it could be more effectively utilised for forestation and conservation purposes - it need not be a private killing ground.
OK?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,313
oh dear
Reasoned reply too hard for you, so just post rubbish yea? Nice one!