Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the snippets I've read of the letters, Charles' letters go beyond expressing a concern for old buildings and an albatross.

In one of the letters, he is actively lobbying for a friend to be appointed in an agricultural role. It's at the Guardian if you want to look for yourself.

I don't mind Charles writing letters, but he has a level of influence way beyond the average man in the street, simply because of an accident of birth.

He has influence, but no accountability to the electorate.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but he has a level of influence way beyond the average man in the street

I don't think we should be attacking Prince Charles for that but politicians for bowing to that. If he is lobbying as a person, that is fine as long as he is accorded the same influence as anyone else. If he is lobbying as a land owner and employer, I personally don't like that, but that is not any more of an issue than the power given to major funders and large businesses that stick their oar in. I don't think either group should, but they do. If it is because he is next in line to the throne, that is down to the government of the time as he has no real power. He can't DO anything, and any power at the moment is purely imaginary.

I'm not saying he is not influencing the government because he is next in line to the throne, just that it is a matter of politicians doing something they should not rather than him.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but he has a level of influence way beyond the average man in the street

I don't think we should be attacking Prince Charles for that but politicians for bowing to that. If he is lobbying as a person, that is fine as long as he is accorded the same influence as anyone else. If he is lobbying as a land owner and employer, I personally don't like that, but that is not any more of an issue than the power given to major funders and large businesses that stick their oar in. I don't think either group should, but they do. If it is because he is next in line to the throne, that is down to the government of the time as he has no real power. He can't DO anything, and any power at the moment is purely imaginary.

I'm not saying he is not influencing the government because he is next in line to the throne, just that it is a matter of politicians doing something they should not rather than him.

If I'm being honest, most of these letters paint Charles in a good light. He comes across as well meaning, if a little bumbling, so I don't know why their publication has been subjected to such legal challenges. The taxpayers are paying for all this, get them in the open.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing, does anybody think this is one of the scariest, anti-civil liberty viewpoints, that we've ever heard in recent times?

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone..." David Cameron

You what, Dave! Are you for real? I had to look twice at that. I should bloody think so that you'll leave people alone if they're obeying the law.

If this is what the next five years is going to be like, then I can see this country making its feelings known in the streets...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If I'm being honest, most of these letters paint Charles in a good light. He comes across as well meaning, if a little bumbling, so I don't know why their publication has been subjected to such legal challenges. The taxpayers are paying for all this, get them in the open.

The taxpayers pay for Alex Salmonds wild expenses, but those aren't in the open, and your SNP buddies are in no rush to be accountable.
Why pick on Prince Charles?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8043675.stm

Alex Salmond's expenses.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If I'm being honest, most of these letters paint Charles in a good light. He comes across as well meaning, if a little bumbling, so I don't know why their publication has been subjected to such legal challenges. The taxpayers are paying for all this, get them in the open.

The taxpayers pay for Alex Salmonds wild expenses, but those aren't in the open, and your SNP buddies are in no rush to be accountable.
Why pick on Prince Charles?

Tu qoque at its finest.

Hardly, tu qoque. The arrguement is not fallacious. The fallacious argument is to claim that Prince Charles is acountable due to taxpayer involvement when in reality his personal estate grants far more to the Treasury than he receives back in grant than normal taxation would allow.

Puting example to the complainers own political choices is most valid. Of which Salmond has a lot to answer for.

Salmond's total are known because the taxpayer has to pay. But the breakdown and justification are short in coming.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-claimed-116k-expenses-972571

That and more.

With politicians squandering like this, its a bad topic to pick on the royals. Who are net contributors.

'Take us with you, Scotland' say thousands in North of England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32736153


Thousands of people in the North of England have been using the hashtag "take us with you Scotland" to express their upset about the result of last week's general election, and the Scottish nationalists are welcoming this English minority with open arms.

Since last Thursday's general election in Britain the phrase "take us with you Scotland" has been used more than 24,000 times. Cities in the North of England have traditionally been a stronghold of the Labour party who retained many of them in the recent vote, but won 232 seats overall, 26 fewer seats than they won in 2010. Voters in the region also returned Conservative MPs - including Chancellor George Osborne who is today setting out a plan for greater devolution to northern cities. For obvious reasons, the left-leaning Scottish National Party didn't stand in the region - but won nearly all the seats in Scotland.

On Sunday afternoon left-leaning voters in Yorkshire and Lancashire started to use the hashtag to express their upset at this situation. "#TakeUsWithYouScotland genuinely beginning to wonder if the North of England becoming a part of Scotland would be better for us, I really am" tweeted Aaron Miller from Yorkshire. Some cracked more jokes under the tag after the North West Motorway Police account, which gives traffic updates, announced that they had "picked up a pedestrian on the M62 who was trying to walk to Scotland".

After the initial spike of jokes on Sunday evening, the hashtag really took off when users start to mobilise around a year old petition on change.org, which is titled "allow the north of England to secede from the UK & join Scotland". The petition's creator, a Sheffield resident who calls himself "Stu Dent", set it up to coincide with last year's Scottish independence referendum. A map created by Dent imagining the boundary of a "Scotland plus the north" was also widely shared.

Dent runs the Twitter account Hunters Bar, named after an area of southwest Sheffield which is very popular with students and which also happens to sit on the edge of the Sheffield Hallam constituency - represented by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg. Despite having thousands of followers on Twitter, when Dent first posted his map last year, the image was shared less than 100 times - but in the past week it's been retweeted by thousands.

Dent told BBC Trending that he was surprised at how popular his petition had become. "In hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have been," he said. "There is a huge frustration in parts of the UK about the things that have happened since 2010."

"I think people need a place to go where they can say 'not in my name! This is not the England I want'," he added.



So why has the trend grown so big now? The election results are clearly one factor, but there may be another: the power of the Scottish Nationalists on Twitter and their ability to influence the discussion on the platform. What started as a post-election joke in the North of England was quickly embraced by the so-called "Cyber Nats" and they were able to push the image and petition up the Twitter trending list.

I do wonder if the Left wing will ever give it a rest.


Honestly, if you put this much effort into gaining support for Labour before the election you wouldn't be up a creek without a paddle.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I do wonder if the Left wing will ever give it a rest.

Nope... they never will.

Honestly, if you put this much effort into gaining support for Labour before the election you wouldn't be up a creek without a paddle.

Indeed... same story here in the states for both parties.

Will the Right wing ever give it a rest? People don't just give deeply held convictions a "rest" guys, be realistic.

The left wing vote is often younger and poorer, two things that don't correlate well with getting out to vote, something that Labour need to look at. That and their track record of involving the UK in illegal wars, which was normally Conservative territory

Illegal wars?? o.O

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If I'm being honest, most of these letters paint Charles in a good light. He comes across as well meaning, if a little bumbling, so I don't know why their publication has been subjected to such legal challenges. The taxpayers are paying for all this, get them in the open.

The taxpayers pay for Alex Salmonds wild expenses, but those aren't in the open, and your SNP buddies are in no rush to be accountable.
Why pick on Prince Charles?

The difference is that Salmond has allowed the electorate to judge him and they gave him a victory and a healthy majority last Thursday, as well you know.

 whembly wrote:
Illegal wars?? o.O

Where have you been for the last 20 years?

 whembly wrote:
Illegal wars?? o.O

Iraq, as well you know

 -Shrike- wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Illegal wars?? o.O

Where have you been for the last 20 years?

So the UN resolutions was bad?

It's only an illegal war if you don't win.

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's only an illegal war if you don't win.

Then... we should be fine!

 whembly wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's only an illegal war if you don't win.

Then... we should be fine!

The 'victory' in Iraq has been rendered even more counter productive by the rise of ISIS whose very existence can be traced back to the cack handed way that the Iraqi people and institutions were treated after Saddam fell. Some victory.

 Orlanth wrote:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-claimed-116k-expenses-972571

They actually seem quite reasonable given that the majority of those expenses (from 2008 by the way) cover staffing costs of his London office, at least it wasn't for a duck pond. During this time he was donating one of his salaries to charity so he is obviously a money grubbing monster.

 whembly wrote:
Illegal wars?? o.O

The notorious Bass Ale - Lowenbrau Wars

 welshhoppo wrote:
I do wonder if the Left wing will ever give it a rest.

No, they wont.

You can sum them up as: We didnt get the party we want for the next five years, so we want to destroy a country united since the 8th century.
While only a feeling and not a true movement, it is pretty indicative of how far some distraught Labour voters will stick their bottoms up their backsides.

As for lefties walking to Scotland, let them claim benefit there. I will be half nice and advise them not to live in parts of Glasgow, they don't like English there. If they expect lefty equality and multiculturalism and an English embracing Nat community in somewhere like Paisley, they have another thing coming.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Honestly, if you put this much effort into gaining support for Labour before the election you wouldn't be up a creek without a paddle.

Well played. You get an exalt.

 Orlanth wrote:
[Au contraire, there would be enough merit because the cases would have to be reviewed, and the press triggered outrage is a normal use of popular democracy.

Which is still a massive step from actually releasing someone and nowhere near releasing dangerous people. Press driven outrage over this would be fear-mongering and certainly not popular democracy.

My home town is already in Scotland. It was in the Daily Mail so it must be true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760467/Doncaster-technically-Scotland-signed-900-years-ago-never-formally-given-back.html

Also the plot to Faragegate thickens.

Nigel Farage clings to Ukip leadership as former allies call for his resignation
Party splits into two factions, with some of the most senior figures backing Ukip’s only MP Douglas Carswell

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11606757/nigel-farage-ukip-leadership-resignation.html

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Illegal wars?? o.O

The notorious Bass Ale - Lowenbrau Wars

Ah... stand corrected.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/human-rights-act-to-be-replaced-with-warhammer-rulebook-2015051598341

 Koppo wrote:
Bleeding hell, another 5 years of the Tories.

Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)

Given this was quoted several times...

People did figure out I was mainly being facetious, right?

While Scotland has in the past been the balance of power for Labour for the UK as a whole, simple maths points out that in this instance it would have made no difference.

Maybe in 5 years my comment may be more apt.

Anyway, the FPTP system is, in my opinion, complete bull honky and I think a more federal system with proportional rep would be more democratic (but maybe more chaotic, with a small c.)

 welshhoppo wrote:
I do wonder if the Left wing will ever give it a rest.


Honestly, if you put this much effort into gaining support for Labour before the election you wouldn't be up a creek without a paddle.

I'm no fan of the Conservatives, but there is something unpleasantly bitter about what I've been seeing on Facebook. I doubt that many of the people who are bewailing how undemocratic the system is would be doing so if their party of choice had won.

 Elemental wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I do wonder if the Left wing will ever give it a rest.


Honestly, if you put this much effort into gaining support for Labour before the election you wouldn't be up a creek without a paddle.

I'm no fan of the Conservatives, but there is something unpleasantly bitter about what I've been seeing on Facebook. I doubt that many of the people who are bewailing how undemocratic the system is would be doing so if their party of choice had won.

Well I'm from Swansea, which has been a proud Labour zone since 1964. Swansea East has been Labour since 1922. But the Gower turned to the conservatives and there has been a lot of hate about it.

Most of them seem to forget that Labour left our city to rot years ago, and its only now catching up with the UK.

deleted

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/human-rights-act-to-be-replaced-with-warhammer-rulebook-2015051598341

Gove added: “My office has been asked why we chose to use the science-fictional Warhammer 40,000 rules rather than the original Warhammer Fantasy setting.

“Simply, we are not barbarians.”

Nice one!

 kronk wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/human-rights-act-to-be-replaced-with-warhammer-rulebook-2015051598341

Gove added: “My office has been asked why we chose to use the science-fictional Warhammer 40,000 rules rather than the original Warhammer Fantasy setting.

“Simply, we are not barbarians.”

Nice one!

Can you imagine YMDC with 650 politicians.