There is no happy ending for Bobby J – politicalbetting.com

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

No they would not

Yes they would

You don't have to bring up Christmas this early. I know the ****ing shops are full of it, and Mrs C has already ordered her charity* Christmas cards and calendars and diary, but there are standards, dammit.

*John Muir Trust, Woodland Trust, and anything else I haven't spotted in the incoming mail ...

We haven’t had Remembrance Sunday yet. Let alone Advent Sunday.

My Mrs C has also started preparing for it, though. And we’ve booked our Christmas Dinner.

We've had Halloween.

We're into Christmas season now.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

Nah, sell them off.

All true Conservatives prefer things in the private sector rather than being paid for by the state.

Socialists like you belong in the Labour Party.

Imagine me asking for the state to buy me a new kitchen or a new decorative scheme. In my family house.

Even worse, imagine Tories thinking it just fine and dandy for me to do that.

The Duchies belong to the monarch and Prince privately, they do not belong to the state

So if they're owned privately was IHT paid on it, as any other private inheritance faces?

No as otherwise taxpayers would have to fund the Prince of Wales

Why

As his duties as Prince of Wales are for the State and his role as heir to the throne and next Head of State and need funding

He has enough investments and tax advantages to do it himself

No he doesn't as ultimately they would run out if they have to fund all state duties

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

Nah, sell them off.

All true Conservatives prefer things in the private sector rather than being paid for by the state.

Socialists like you belong in the Labour Party.

Imagine me asking for the state to buy me a new kitchen or a new decorative scheme. In my family house.

Even worse, imagine Tories thinking it just fine and dandy for me to do that.

The Duchies belong to the monarch and Prince privately, they do not belong to the state

So if they're owned privately was IHT paid on it, as any other private inheritance faces?

No as otherwise taxpayers would have to fund the Prince of Wales

Why

As his duties as Prince of Wales are for the State and his role as heir to the throne and next Head of State and need funding

The point is almost none of these duties are actually needed.

Suppose Harry hadn't gone off to the US. He would have been performing all kinds of duties - but as he's not here he hasn't - and what effect has it had on the country? None.

Suppose Andrew hadn't been banished. Ditto as above - again none of these duties have happened - again no impact on anyone.

Kate has done almost no duties this year (for entirely understandable reasons) - but again there's been no impact on anyone - other than tabloid editors who've had to find something else to go on their front pages.

The reality is that the whole thing could be scaled back by at least 90% - back to core things like Opening Parliament, Remembrance Day etc. All the rest could be dumped and huge savings made.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

Nah, sell them off.

All true Conservatives prefer things in the private sector rather than being paid for by the state.

Socialists like you belong in the Labour Party.

Imagine me asking for the state to buy me a new kitchen or a new decorative scheme. In my family house.

Even worse, imagine Tories thinking it just fine and dandy for me to do that.

The Duchies belong to the monarch and Prince privately, they do not belong to the state

So if they're owned privately was IHT paid on it, as any other private inheritance faces?

No as otherwise taxpayers would have to fund the Prince of Wales

Why

As his duties as Prince of Wales are for the State and his role as heir to the throne and next Head of State and need funding

He has enough investments and tax advantages to do it himself

No he doesn't as ultimately they would run out if they have to fund all state duties

Ever heard of the difference between capital and interest?

And your employer paying legitimate expenses? They're civil servants, and there's an excellent model already in the Northcote-Trevelyan doctrine of the Civil Service.

rottenborough said:

Trump: "The weave. It's genius".

Totally deranged.

"There'll be a time in life where the weave won't finish properly at the bottom and then we can talk. But right now it's pure genius."
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1852775199361339446

His comments about white skin yesterday were utterly bizarre.

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

Parliament needs to know if the King is a tax dodger like his mother.

His first act was to agree to follow his mother in paying 75% tax, so no.

Are you referring to the crown estates there?

By virtue of being sovereign, the monarch has a 100% liability to fund the British state because they are the British state. All their money belongs to the state, so they can't actually pay tax, except as an accounting exercise.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/02/king-and-prince-william-estates-millions-charities-public-services-nhs-leasing-land

"The king will also make at least £28m from windfarms because the Duchy of Lancaster retains a feudal right to charge for cables crossing the foreshore, according to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times.

William’s Duchy of Cornwall, the hereditary estate of the heir to the throne, has signed a £37m deal to lease Dartmoor prison for 25 years to the Ministry of Justice, which is liable for all repairs despite paying £1.5m a head for a jail empty of prisoners because of high levels of radon gas."

Surely even England can't find a way to lose this.

And well played Liam Livingstone.

Carnyx said:

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

Parliament needs to know if the King is a tax dodger like his mother.

His first act was to agree to follow his mother in paying 75% tax, so no.

Are you referring to the crown estates there?

By virtue of being sovereign, the monarch has a 100% liability to fund the British state because they are the British state. All their money belongs to the state, so they can't actually pay tax, except as an accounting exercise.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/02/king-and-prince-william-estates-millions-charities-public-services-nhs-leasing-land

"The king will also make at least £28m from windfarms because the Duchy of Lancaster retains a feudal right to charge for cables crossing the foreshore, according to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times.

William’s Duchy of Cornwall, the hereditary estate of the heir to the throne, has signed a £37m deal to lease Dartmoor prison for 25 years to the Ministry of Justice, which is liable for all repairs despite paying £1.5m a head for a jail empty of prisoners because of high levels of radon gas."

If there is nobody actually in it, £1.5 million a head sounds an absolute bargain.

BartholomewRoberts said:

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

No they would not

Yes they would

You don't have to bring up Christmas this early. I know the ****ing shops are full of it, and Mrs C has already ordered her charity* Christmas cards and calendars and diary, but there are standards, dammit.

*John Muir Trust, Woodland Trust, and anything else I haven't spotted in the incoming mail ...

We haven’t had Remembrance Sunday yet. Let alone Advent Sunday.

My Mrs C has also started preparing for it, though. And we’ve booked our Christmas Dinner.

We've had Halloween.

We're into Christmas season now.

I always aim to bake my Christmas cake on the weekend the clocks go back (which will cause me a few issues if the nonsense of changing the clocks is ever abolished). It's hard not to think of that as the start of Christmas season.

My wife has an unfortunate aversion to Christmas carols, due to having to teach so many young children how to play them on the tin whistle or other instruments, so I have to hold off on the Christmas music for a while yet...

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

Parliament needs to know if the King is a tax dodger like his mother.

His first act was to agree to follow his mother in paying 75% tax, so no.

Are you referring to the crown estates there?

By virtue of being sovereign, the monarch has a 100% liability to fund the British state because they are the British state. All their money belongs to the state, so they can't actually pay tax, except as an accounting exercise.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/02/king-and-prince-william-estates-millions-charities-public-services-nhs-leasing-land

"The king will also make at least £28m from windfarms because the Duchy of Lancaster retains a feudal right to charge for cables crossing the foreshore, according to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times.

William’s Duchy of Cornwall, the hereditary estate of the heir to the throne, has signed a £37m deal to lease Dartmoor prison for 25 years to the Ministry of Justice, which is liable for all repairs despite paying £1.5m a head for a jail empty of prisoners because of high levels of radon gas."

If there is nobody actually in it, £1.5 million a head sounds an absolute bargain.

It is odd wording - I assume £1.5m per cell, doesn't make sense otherwise ...

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

Nah, sell them off.

All true Conservatives prefer things in the private sector rather than being paid for by the state.

Socialists like you belong in the Labour Party.

Imagine me asking for the state to buy me a new kitchen or a new decorative scheme. In my family house.

Even worse, imagine Tories thinking it just fine and dandy for me to do that.

The Duchies belong to the monarch and Prince privately, they do not belong to the state

So if they're owned privately was IHT paid on it, as any other private inheritance faces?

No as otherwise taxpayers would have to fund the Prince of Wales

Why

As his duties as Prince of Wales are for the State and his role as heir to the throne and next Head of State and need funding

He has enough investments and tax advantages to do it himself

No he doesn't as ultimately they would run out if they have to fund all state duties

Ever heard of the difference between capital and interest?

And your employer paying legitimate expenses? They're civil servants, and there's an excellent model already in the Northcote-Trevelyan doctrine of the Civil Service.

Yes, you want taxpayers to pick up the bill for all working royals expenses too now it seems unlike now

Fantastic performance from Livingstone. Brilliant acceleration into the final 10. Made it look easy.

MikeL said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

Nah, sell them off.

All true Conservatives prefer things in the private sector rather than being paid for by the state.

Socialists like you belong in the Labour Party.

Imagine me asking for the state to buy me a new kitchen or a new decorative scheme. In my family house.

Even worse, imagine Tories thinking it just fine and dandy for me to do that.

The Duchies belong to the monarch and Prince privately, they do not belong to the state

So if they're owned privately was IHT paid on it, as any other private inheritance faces?

No as otherwise taxpayers would have to fund the Prince of Wales

Why

As his duties as Prince of Wales are for the State and his role as heir to the throne and next Head of State and need funding

The point is almost none of these duties are actually needed.

Suppose Harry hadn't gone off to the US. He would have been performing all kinds of duties - but as he's not here he hasn't - and what effect has it had on the country? None.

Suppose Andrew hadn't been banished. Ditto as above - again none of these duties have happened - again no impact on anyone.

Kate has done almost no duties this year (for entirely understandable reasons) - but again there's been no impact on anyone - other than tabloid editors who've had to find something else to go on their front pages.

The reality is that the whole thing could be scaled back by at least 90% - back to core things like Opening Parliament, Remembrance Day etc. All the rest could be dumped and huge savings made.

No they couldn't, part of the role of a ceremonial head of state is state visits hosting here and trips overseas, hosting receptions for charities and voluntary bodies and visits to village halls, community groups, WI, Scouts, schools, factories etc you name it. Raising their morale too

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

Nah, sell them off.

All true Conservatives prefer things in the private sector rather than being paid for by the state.

Socialists like you belong in the Labour Party.

Imagine me asking for the state to buy me a new kitchen or a new decorative scheme. In my family house.

Even worse, imagine Tories thinking it just fine and dandy for me to do that.

The Duchies belong to the monarch and Prince privately, they do not belong to the state

So if they're owned privately was IHT paid on it, as any other private inheritance faces?

No as otherwise taxpayers would have to fund the Prince of Wales

Why

As his duties as Prince of Wales are for the State and his role as heir to the throne and next Head of State and need funding

OK so pay him a salary for doing that job.

Say £50,000 per annum sounds reasonable to me.

If he doesn't want to do that job for that salary, let him resign and find someone else willing to do it.

Not a reason to allow him to dodge £400 million in IHT that should be due.

That you think it is, shows how bad value for money you are.

It would be £200k plus per annum for all working royals paid for by taxpayers unlike now.

The Duchies also provide affordable homes and renewable energy schemes and farmland etc which would all ultimately have to go if they paid IHT

So he pays £400m taxes due and then we pay him £200k salary?

I can live with that. Though that's way more than I think he needs.

72.2m votes cast

2020 total vote = 158.4m

So 46% of vote cast if total vote same as 2020.

In practice it's even more than above due to time lag between votes being cast and reported.

Gender split is 53% female, 44% male - which remains encouraging for Dems (3% unknown)

ydoethur said:

Surely even England can't find a way to lose this.

And well played Liam Livingstone.

They didn’t! And well played LL indeed!

MikeL said:

72.2m votes cast

2020 total vote = 158.4m

So 46% of vote cast if total vote same as 2020.

In practice it's even more than above due to time lag between votes being cast and reported.

Gender split is 53% female, 44% male - which remains encouraging for Dems (3% unknown)

That's incredible. How many think, "oh, I wish I could change my mind?"

rottenborough said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

No they would not

Yes they would

You don't have to bring up Christmas this early. I know the ****ing shops are full of it, and Mrs C has already ordered her charity* Christmas cards and calendars and diary, but there are standards, dammit.

*John Muir Trust, Woodland Trust, and anything else I haven't spotted in the incoming mail ...

We haven’t had Remembrance Sunday yet. Let alone Advent Sunday.

My Mrs C has also started preparing for it, though. And we’ve booked our Christmas Dinner.

We've had Halloween.

We're into Christmas season now.

I always aim to bake my Christmas cake on the weekend the clocks go back (which will cause me a few issues if the nonsense of changing the clocks is ever abolished). It's hard not to think of that as the start of Christmas season.

My wife has an unfortunate aversion to Christmas carols, due to having to teach so many young children how to play them on the tin whistle or other instruments, so I have to hold off on the Christmas music for a while yet...

Stir Sunday is not until 24th Nov

The recipe I have is from Antonia Cornwell, and it calls for eight weeks of dosing the cake with your spirit of choice.

viewcode said:

Sean_F said:

kyf_100 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Barnesian said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Theuniondivvie said:

She really has curdled into a petty, old boot.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1852715478461890626

May be, like Tennant, you “just wish [her] to shut up”?

Or dream of a world where you wake up and she “ doesn’t exist”?

(Snip)

The problem is that many anti-trans people don't want trans people to exist, deny they exist, and/or want to make it impossible for them to transition at any age.

Hence calling transmen "confused lesbians", or transwomen "men in skirts", and the attempts to stop trans people from using womens toilets.

That is definitely not Rowling's position.
On her blog:
"Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."
That's the issue. The vast majority of people are not anti-trans. They are supportive or just not interested. The problem lies with the very small minority of trans activists who are trying to coerce the rest of us to not only accept self identification (fair enough) but use the law to enforce the right of Self ID trans to have access to women's spaces.

I'm supportive of animal rights but not animal rights activists.
I'm supportive of protection of the environment and action on climate change, but not of the extreme activists.
The activists do more harm than good to their cause. Including trans activists.
And yes I know about the suffragettes. I don't think the extremists helped their cause.

She also routinely misgenders people. If she meant what she said above, she wouldn't. It strikes me as being like a racist who knows and likes one black person, and therefore thinks it excuses racism towards others. "Of course I'm not racist; an old friend of mine is black."

I'm unsure that "The vast majority of people are not anti-trans." It'd be interesting to see figures on that.

Even the tweet mocking David Tennant today is a low blow.

One of Tennant's children is, IIRC, trans / gender non-conforming.

To use an analogy people on here might understand, Leon didn't just get the banhammer for casual racism, it was because he offended to the core people whose partners and children are non-white, by implying their loved ones had less value than 'white babies'. And that felt like a visceral, personal attack.

To some of us, trans people aren't just strange concepts that only exist in theory, they are our friends, family and loved ones. And when people make comments that seek to erase their existence, as Rowling frequently does, e.g. with the casual misgendering, it wounds to the very core.

Rowling's transphobia is out there in the open for all to see.

I don't want to get involved in a long, drawn out debate on the trans issue. But I do want to stand up for, and speak up for, the people I love.

David Tennant wasn't some rich lefty engaging in virtue signalling. He was a father standing up for his child's right to exist.

Nobody should be made to feel less valid as a human being because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender identity. Rowling, sadly, has a great deal of form with the latter.

But, his remark about Kemi Badenoch was disgraceful. He doesn’t get a pass.

I don't think his quote that his "...life would be easier if she didn't exist" is disgraceful. Although my life is £74 better than it was this morning thanks to her existence, so there's that.

There is a propensity for celebrities to have a trans child. Of course, no such thing as a trans child, just a parent proxying their transhaussen.

darkage said:

kle4 said:

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Barnesian said:

StillWaters said:

ClippP said:

StillWaters said:

maxh said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Congratulations to (not Nigerian born) Kemi Badenoch and to the Tory members for choosing the better of the two unpalatable offerings available. I also have some doubts about her being leader at the time of the next GE, but I'm sure she'll give it a good shot. Can she turn her focus away from owning the libz and onto the kind of issues that normal people care about? I suspect not but let's see.

For those who haven't read it, I'd say

https://conservativehome.com/2024/09/30/kemi-badenoch-conservatism-is-in-crisis-and-we-need-to-be-serious-about-getting-it-back-on-track/

and the more detailed

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66e290977b0f17041797e6ae/66fb3a4aa6d5bf17f7481ed1_Conservatism in Crisis.pdf

from which the first link is taken, are essential reading on what kind of direction Kemi's Conservatives might take.

I'm an incredibly socially liberal, libertarian type, and still manage to find much to agree with in the above writings.

Rather than being part of the "PC gone mad" "common sense" anti-woke stuff Reform push, it's a much more comprehensive argument that society has become less liberal and tolerant as a result of ideological capture by left leaning bureaucracy - call it the blob, the nu10k, whatever. And that its view is more bureaucracy, more government, is always the solution, and that needs to be challenged.

Her argument seems to be more that the "bureaucratic class" is an assault on capitalism, rather than "woke ideology is destroying our children".

Cautiously optimistic that Kemi will surprise to the upside. With Starmer and Reeves pushing tax and spend, low growth, big government, on us all, we will need an effective opposition to challenge an ever encroaching state.

Thanks for the link, an interesting read although I was slightly triggered by the capitalisation of Malaise.

Thing is, I think this is superficially very appealing (and I say that as a fairly hard leftist). But my only experience of the reality of this is in teaching, where one of the main sources of bureaucracy comes in through trying to prevent kids being abused, either at home or in school. Whilst the form-filling is time consuming and creates unproductive roles for administrators, I still think that is a better world than one in which child molesters are allowed to be with kids unsupervised.

To rephrase, how to do you remove the bureaucracy whilst keeping protections in place? Or do you accept less protection eg more kids being abused? Or is there another solution?

I realise I've just picked one aspect of
bureaucracy, but there is also a wider question - which bits of paperwork for eg planning are the important ones? That's quite a hard, value-laden question to answer (not to say it shouldn't be asked, though).

Re-reading your comment on planning

A friend had an old property that he didn’t need. He got the planning permission to turn it into 2 units and then gave it to a local charity for social housing.

The planning people made the charity redo all the expert reports - at a cost of thousands and a delay of months - because
the LibDems on the council insisted that because they were addressed to my friend they were no longer valid and it wasn’t possible to assign the reports to the charity.

Is there a name for this council that actually allows councillors to get that close to the details?

It was in Hampshire

There is more to this story. Normally Councillors do not get involved in planning issues. A Councillor would have to "call it in". It seems unlikely in the extreme that a Councillor of any party would call in a planning issue to delay things and increase costs to a charity. It just doesn't ring true.

Personal animosity? I’ve met some councillors who make Edmund Dantes seem forgetful of slights. And over the most trivial things.

The Council Law Officer would intervene if it were blatant on a planning issue.

I wonder how prevalent it is that Monitoring Officer's intervene. In something like planning you'd have to assume it happens from time to time, as the costs are not trivial. But if a challenge is not looking likely, pragmatism might be to let things slide from case officers and legal support.

As to being unlikely a councillor might call things in to delay and increase costs to a charity, it sounds very plausible to me - if there was public animosity against the application in question they'd find a reason,
the reason given need not match the real one. Everyone in planning will have seen 'deferrals' for information which are just delaying tactics for example.

It would, however, be an issue of poor procedure if at a late stage a councillor coudl stick their oar in so consequentially on an individual basis.

Not sure about this case but there can be copyright issues with these technical reports; if you rely on them to grant permission without the permission of the author.

It’s not copyright but liability. You need to assign them. It was the assignment that the councillor messed with.

kyf_100 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Barnesian said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Theuniondivvie said:

She really has curdled into a petty, old boot.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1852715478461890626

May be, like Tennant, you “just wish [her] to shut up”?

Or dream of a world where you wake up and she “ doesn’t exist”?

(Snip)

The problem is that many anti-trans people don't want trans people to exist, deny they exist, and/or want to make it impossible for them to transition at any age.

Hence calling transmen "confused lesbians", or transwomen "men in skirts", and the attempts to stop trans people from using womens toilets.

That is definitely not Rowling's position.
On her blog:
"Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."
That's the issue. The vast majority of people are not anti-trans. They are supportive or just not interested. The problem lies with the very small minority of trans activists who are trying to coerce the rest of us to not only accept self identification (fair enough) but use the law to enforce the right of Self ID trans to have access to women's spaces.

I'm supportive of animal rights but not animal rights activists.
I'm supportive of protection of the environment and action on climate change, but not of the extreme activists.
The activists do more harm than good to their cause. Including trans activists.
And yes I know about the suffragettes. I don't think the extremists helped their cause.

She also routinely misgenders people. If she meant what she said above, she wouldn't. It strikes me as being like a racist who knows and likes one black person, and therefore thinks it excuses racism towards others. "Of course I'm not racist; an old friend of mine is black."

I'm unsure that "The vast majority of people are not anti-trans." It'd be interesting to see figures on that.

Even the tweet mocking David Tennant today is a low blow.

One of Tennant's children is, IIRC, trans / gender non-conforming.

To use an analogy people on here might understand, Leon didn't just get the banhammer for casual racism, it was because he offended to the core people whose partners and children are non-white, by implying their loved ones had less value than 'white babies'. And that felt like a visceral, personal attack.

To some of us, trans people aren't just strange concepts that only exist in theory, they are our friends, family and loved ones. And when people make comments that seek to erase their existence, as Rowling frequently does, e.g. with the casual misgendering, it wounds to the very core.

Rowling's transphobia is out there in the open for all to see.

I don't want to get involved in a long, drawn out debate on the trans issue. But I do want to stand up for, and speak up for, the people I love.

David Tennant wasn't some rich lefty
engaging in virtue signalling. He was a father standing up for his child's right to exist.

Nobody should be made to feel less valid as a human being because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender identity. Rowling, sadly, has a great deal of form with the latter.

Tennant’s attack was on Badenoch and he wished for a world where she didn’t exist and that she would shut up.

WildernessPt2 said:

viewcode said:

Sean_F said:

kyf_100 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Barnesian said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Theuniondivvie said:

She really has curdled into a petty, old boot.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1852715478461890626

May be, like Tennant, you “just wish [her] to shut up”?

Or dream of a world where you wake up and she “ doesn’t exist”?

(Snip)

The problem is that many anti-trans people don't want trans people to exist, deny they exist, and/or want to make it impossible for them to transition at any age.

Hence calling transmen "confused lesbians", or transwomen "men in skirts", and the attempts to stop trans people from using womens toilets.

That is definitely not Rowling's position.
On her blog:
"Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."
That's the issue. The vast majority of people are not anti-trans. They are supportive or just not interested. The problem lies with the very small minority of trans activists who are trying to coerce the rest of us to not only accept self identification (fair enough) but use the law to enforce the right of Self ID trans to have access to women's spaces.

I'm supportive of animal rights but not animal rights activists.
I'm supportive of protection of the environment and action on climate change, but not of the extreme activists.
The activists do more harm than good to their cause. Including trans activists.
And yes I know about the suffragettes. I don't think the extremists helped their cause.

She also routinely misgenders people. If she meant what she said above, she wouldn't. It strikes me as being like a racist who knows and likes one black person, and therefore thinks it excuses racism towards others. "Of course I'm not racist; an old friend of mine is black."

I'm unsure that "The vast majority of people are not anti-trans." It'd be interesting to see figures on that.

Even the tweet mocking David Tennant today is a low blow.

One of Tennant's children is, IIRC, trans / gender non-conforming.

To use an analogy people on here might understand, Leon didn't just get the banhammer for casual racism, it was because he offended to the core people whose partners and children are non-white, by implying their loved ones had less value than 'white babies'. And that felt like a visceral, personal attack.

To some of us, trans people aren't just strange concepts that only exist in theory, they are our friends, family and loved ones. And when people make comments that seek to erase their existence, as Rowling frequently does, e.g. with the casual misgendering, it wounds to the very core.

Rowling's transphobia is out there in the open for all to see.

I don't want to get involved in a long, drawn out debate on the trans issue. But I do want to stand up for, and speak up for, the people I love.

David Tennant wasn't some rich lefty engaging in virtue signalling. He was a father standing up for his child's right to exist.

Nobody should be made to feel less valid as a human being because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender identity. Rowling, sadly, has a great deal of form with the latter.

But, his remark about Kemi Badenoch was disgraceful. He doesn’t get a pass.

I don't think his quote that his "...life would be easier if she didn't exist" is disgraceful. Although my life is £74 better than it was this morning thanks to her existence, so there's that.

There is a propensity for celebrities to have a trans child. Of course, no such thing as a trans child, just a parent proxying their transhaussen.

So you mean like Elon Musk's sprog?

It's almost like Trump wants to lose with his recent comments, which are so bizarre even a lot of his supporters will be put off by them.

WOKE Prince Charles strikes again

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1852804112510828678

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

Parliament needs to know if the King is a tax dodger like his mother.

His first act was to agree to follow his mother in paying 75% tax, so no.

Are you referring to the crown estates there?

By virtue of being sovereign, the monarch has a 100% liability to fund the British state because they are the British state. All their money belongs to the state, so they can't actually pay tax, except as an accounting exercise.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/02/king-and-prince-william-estates-millions-charities-public-services-nhs-leasing-land

"The king will also make at least £28m from windfarms because the Duchy of Lancaster retains a feudal right to charge for cables crossing the foreshore, according to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times.

William’s Duchy of Cornwall, the hereditary estate of the heir to the throne, has signed a £37m deal to lease Dartmoor prison for 25 years to the Ministry of Justice, which is liable for all repairs despite paying £1.5m a head for a jail empty of prisoners because of high levels of radon gas."

Generous move from the Prince due to shortage of prison places and great support for renewable energy and windfarms too.

What an example he is to us all!

Frankly he is no example to me with all his entitlements and servants

Yes but he has the position by grace of God, while you are a commoner

We are all equal in the eyes of the Good Lord

Ugh.

The NHS will pay the King’s duchy £11m over 15 years to rent a warehouse for ambulances...it is being charged 67% more than the previous tenants paid.

Great reporting from Sunday Times Insight team
@Arbuthnott

@JCalvertST

@KatieTarrant_

@thetimes

https://x.com/ShaunLintern/status/1852748219391860988

Foxy said:

kyf_100 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Barnesian said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Theuniondivvie said:

She really has curdled into a petty, old boot.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1852715478461890626

May be, like Tennant, you “just wish [her] to shut up”?

Or dream of a world where you wake up and she “ doesn’t exist”?

(Snip)

The problem is that many anti-trans people don't want trans people to exist, deny they exist, and/or want to make it impossible for them to transition at any age.

Hence calling transmen "confused lesbians", or transwomen "men in skirts", and the attempts to stop trans people from using womens toilets.

That is definitely not Rowling's position.
On her blog:
"Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."
That's the issue. The vast majority of people are not anti-trans. They are supportive or just not interested. The problem lies with the very small minority of trans activists who are trying to coerce the rest of us to not only accept self identification (fair enough) but use the law to enforce the right of Self ID trans to have access to women's spaces.

I'm supportive of animal rights but not animal rights activists.
I'm supportive of protection of the environment and action on climate change, but not of the extreme activists.
The activists do more harm than good to their cause. Including trans activists.
And yes I know about the suffragettes. I don't think the extremists helped their cause.

She also routinely misgenders people. If she meant what she said above, she wouldn't. It strikes me as being like a racist who knows and likes one black person, and therefore thinks it excuses racism towards others. "Of course I'm not racist; an old friend of mine is black."

I'm unsure that "The vast majority of people are not anti-trans." It'd be interesting to see figures on that.

Even the tweet mocking David Tennant today is a low blow.

One of Tennant's children is, IIRC, trans / gender non-conforming.

To use an analogy people on here might understand, Leon didn't just get the banhammer for casual racism, it was because he offended to the core people whose partners and children are non-white, by implying their loved ones had less value than 'white babies'. And that felt like a visceral, personal attack.

To some of us, trans people aren't just strange concepts that only exist in theory, they are our friends, family and loved ones. And when people make comments that seek to erase their existence, as Rowling frequently does, e.g. with the casual misgendering, it wounds to the very core.

Rowling's transphobia is out there in the open for all to see.

I don't want to get involved in a long, drawn out debate on the trans issue. But I do want to stand up for, and speak up for, the people I love.

David Tennant wasn't some rich lefty engaging in virtue signalling. He was a father standing up for his child's right to exist.

Nobody should be made to feel less valid as a human being because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender identity. Rowling, sadly, has a great deal of form with the latter.

Thanks for this.

Being Trans seemed a peculiar theoretical to me, but a couple of years back a friend of Fox jr2 who he has known since they were in Beavers together, and still flatshare came out as Trans and now uses female pronouns. She has not yet had either hormonal or surgical treatment, mostly because of difficulties accessing gender affirming treatment. Fox jr2 reckons coming out as Trans has saved her life.

They are the same kind, generous person that I have known for years, and deserve kindness and generosity of spirit as they set out on what is clearly going to be a life where people are prejudiced against her and consider her a threat.

If your son's friend has had no hormonal or surgical treatment, they remain a male. What they call themselves or how they dress are irrelevant. That is why women do not want to have them in changing rooms, loos, rape centres etc - because they are men. No women can tell whether a man - however he present himself - is kind and generous or a predator or someone indulging a fetish. That is why all men are kept out. Perhaps men could learn to be kind to and inclusive of those of their sex who have issues with their gender. And what this forum seems to miss is that some of those sheltering under the trans umbrella are not genuinely trans (whatever that means) but predators, opportunistic men, fetishists and those who like to make women feel uncomfortable. Uncomfortable for men to accept this but a look at the reality - rather than the comforting belief that all transpeople are automatically lovely people who wouldn't harm a fly - will show why women have good reason to believe that some men are taking the piss.

Look, for instance, at the case of the Darlington nurses discussed in today's Times. A man calling himself Rose who has done nothing (chemically or surgically) because he is trying for a baby with his girlfriend insists on going into the female nurses' changing room, wandering round in his boxers and asking them when they are getting undressed. Why the hell should any woman put up with that? Indeed whatever happened to women being able to have boundaries and have them respected, to being able to say "No" and having that accepted?

Why should any woman put up with the risk of indecent exposure or voyeurism (both crimes) or worse to suit men? Bear in mind that since 24 October all employers are under a duty to prevent sexual harassment at work. Forcing women to undress in front of men seems to be a breach of that provision.

Take a look at what Wes Streeting, Wera Hobhouse and Diana Johnson - 2 Labour MPs and a Lib Dem one - have said about the concerns women have about wanting single sex spaces which are just that and realise that this is not a party political issue. Nor is the issue of women's rights trivial or a culture war one. Those saying so simply demonstrate their contempt for women. How a society treats women is the mark of how decent and civilised it really is.

ThomasNashe said:

DavidL said:

ThomasNashe said:

DavidL said:

MikeL said:

72.2m votes cast

2020 total vote = 158.4m

So 46% of vote cast if total vote same as 2020.

In practice it's even more than above due to time lag between votes being cast and reported.

Gender split is 53% female, 44% male - which remains encouraging for Dems (3% unknown)

That's incredible. How many think, "oh, I wish I could change my mind?"

Women save the world from Trump!

I absolutely loved that cartoon that that @Scott_xP linked to this morning with the women going to the polling booth in their Gilead clothes and walking away wearing what they damn well liked. Lets hope that is the way it goes.

I'm pretty optimistic. I think women turning out along with never Trumper Republicans can bring this home quite comfortably for Harris. These are the two factors I don't think have been adequately reflected in the polling.

Could be balanced up though with Trump's reach-out to young males who don't normally vote.

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:

Trump: "The weave. It's genius".

Totally deranged.

"There'll be a time in life where the weave won't finish properly at the bottom and then we can talk. But right now it's pure genius."
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1852775199361339446

His comments about white skin yesterday were utterly bizarre.

Yet 48/49% of Americans want him to be their President.

The country is having a collective nervous breakdown.

The populist right has been surging across the western world and is already in power alone or in coalition in the Netherlands, Italy and New Zealand and ahead in some presidential polls in France. In Sweden the minority centre right government needs populist right support for confidence and supply to stay in office.

Even in Australia and Canada and the UK and Germany the leaders of the main centre right parties are at least on some issues like opposition to excess immigration or woke populist right to some degree. In India, Russia and Israel too the Nationalist right are in government and in Brazil they were in office until a few years ago.

Trump is a symptom not a cause of that and of course he was elected President already 8 years ago

I've come to the conclusion that politicians are little more than driftwood, vainly trying to navigate the oceanic swells beneath them in the hope of staying afloat slightly longer. Elections have the single function of legitimising the government that emerges, but history and geography, like the weather, are beyond their control.

Kaplan final national Presidential poll

Trump 48% Harris 47%
https://www.scribd.com/document/787176657/Final-Kaplan-Strategies-2024-Presidential-Poll#from_embed


Redfield final swing states poll

Pennsylvania Harris 48% Trump 48%

Arizona Trump 48% Harris 47%

Wisconsin Harris 48% Trump 47%

North Carolina Trump 48% Harris 47%

Nevada Trump 48% Harris 47%

Michigan Harris 47% Trump 47%

Georgia Trump 48% Harris 47%
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/final-us-swing-states-voting-intention-28-31-october/

HYUFD said:

Trump is a symptom not a cause of that and of course he was elected President already 8 years ago

Yes, Trump's rise has been caused by underlying problems which won't go away even if Harris wins.

A good chunk of voters know Trump is a criminal, a liar, a racist, a misogynist, a wannabe dictator, and quite possibly senile. But they're ready to back him because he offers simplistic and superficially attractive solutions - too much crime? Deport cat-eating immigrants. No jobs? Impose tariffs. Falling birth rate? Ban contraception and abortion.

Any country who's people are desperate enough to grasp at those straws is in a terrible place. I've been predicting for years the US' problems are so deep-seated it will fracture the union in the medium-term future, and this election has done nothing to disabuse me of that view.

If Trump loses, who will go next? Will Trump have another go?

Scott_xP said:

@KamalaHQ
Trump appears to be unraveling live on stage

“When I say insane asylums, and then I say, Doctor Hannibal Lecter, does anybody know? They go crazy. They say, oh, he brings up these names out of— Well, that's genius. Right. Doctor Hannibal Lecter. There's nobody worse than him. Silence of the Lambs. Who the hell else would even remember that? I have a great memory, but they always hit me. I don't bring it up too much because they have to take such a— he brought up Hannibal Lecter. What does that have to do with this? What is it? It has everything to do with it, right? He was… So I've done something for you for you that I haven't done in 20 speeches. I brought up Doctor Hannibal Lecter and we're allowing him, you watch, you watch these fake people will say again, he brought up Hannibal Lecter has absolutely nothing to do. You know I do the weave, right? The weave. It's genius. You bring up Hannibal Lecter, you mention insane asylum. Hannibal Lecter. You go out, no. There'll be a time in life where the weave won't finish properly at the bottom and then we can talk. But right now it's pure genius. Hey, I have an uncle, my uncle, Uncle John, my father's brother, 41 years at MIT, longest serving professor has so many degrees, he didn't know what the hell to do with them all in the most complicated. I understand a lot of this stuff, you know, I believe in that. Like, I mean, Jack Nicklaus is not gonna produce a bad golfer. Right. You know, that's the way it works. It's just one of those things and it's in the family and it's whatever”

https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1852775199361339446

Just mad, bad and dangerous to know (esp if you are a lawyer).

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

If Trump loses, who will go next? Will Trump have another go?

DeSantis and Haley would be frontrunners if he loses, Vance if he wins as incumbent VP

HYUFD said:

Kaplan final national Presidential poll

Trump 48% Harris 47%
https://www.scribd.com/document/787176657/Final-Kaplan-Strategies-2024-Presidential-Poll#from_embed

Kaplan had Harris 5 points ahead in August - Harris 49% - Trump 44%. Trump has had a good campaign to turn it around.

https://kaplanstrategies.com/2024/08/25/national-poll/

Does MAGA die with Trump (like Corbyn) or do they try and keep it going?

WildernessPt2 said:

There is a propensity for celebrities to have a trans child. Of course, no such thing as a trans child, just a parent proxying their transhaussen.

"There is a propensity for celebrities to have a gay child. Of course, no such thing as a gay child..."

"Children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay..."

Scott_xP said:

Does MAGA die with Trump (like Corbyn) or do they try and keep it going?

Corbyn has not died yet, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t want to die with Trump.

rottenborough said:

Harris is 6/4

That is value imho.

I put my Kemi winnings on Kamala. Let's see if they can do the double...

WildernessPt2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

WildernessPt2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

WildernessPt2 said:

viewcode said:

Sean_F said:

kyf_100 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Barnesian said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Theuniondivvie said:

She really has curdled into a petty, old boot.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1852715478461890626

May be, like Tennant, you “just wish [her] to shut up”?

Or dream of a world where you wake up and she “ doesn’t exist”?

(Snip)

The problem is that many anti-trans people don't want trans people to exist, deny they exist, and/or want to make it impossible for them to transition at any age.

Hence calling transmen "confused lesbians", or transwomen "men in skirts", and the attempts to stop trans people from using womens toilets.

That is definitely not Rowling's position.
On her blog:
"Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."
That's the issue. The vast majority of people are not anti-trans. They are supportive or just not interested. The problem lies with the very small minority of trans activists who are trying to coerce the rest of us to not only accept self identification (fair enough) but use the law to enforce the right of Self ID trans to have access to women's spaces.

I'm supportive of animal rights but not animal rights activists.
I'm supportive of protection of the environment and action on climate change, but not of the extreme activists.
The activists do more harm than good to their cause. Including trans activists.
And yes I know about the suffragettes. I don't think the extremists helped their cause.

She also routinely misgenders people. If she meant what she said above, she wouldn't. It strikes me as being like a racist who knows and likes one black person, and therefore thinks it excuses racism towards others. "Of course I'm not racist; an old friend of mine is black."

I'm unsure that "The vast majority of people are not anti-trans." It'd be interesting to see figures on that.

Even the tweet mocking David Tennant today is a low blow.

One of Tennant's children is, IIRC, trans / gender non-conforming.

To use an analogy people on here might understand, Leon didn't just get the banhammer for casual racism, it was because he offended to the core people whose partners and children are non-white, by implying their loved ones had less value than 'white babies'. And that felt like a visceral, personal attack.

To some of us, trans people aren't just strange concepts that only exist in theory, they are our friends, family and loved ones. And when people make comments that seek to erase their existence, as Rowling frequently does, e.g. with the casual misgendering, it wounds to the very core.

Rowling's transphobia is out there in the open for all to see.

I don't want to get involved in a long, drawn out debate on the trans issue. But I do want to stand up for, and speak up for, the people I love.

David Tennant wasn't some rich lefty engaging in virtue signalling. He was a father standing up for his child's right to exist.

Nobody should be made to feel less valid as a human being because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender identity. Rowling, sadly, has a great deal of form with the latter.

But, his remark about Kemi Badenoch was disgraceful. He doesn’t get a pass.

I don't think his quote that his "...life would be easier if she didn't exist" is disgraceful. Although my life is £74 better than it was this morning thanks to her existence, so there's that.

There is a propensity for celebrities to have a trans child. Of course, no such thing as a trans child, just a parent proxying their transhaussen.

So you mean like Elon Musk's sprog?

Exactly like that. Coming as trans should be celebrated like coming out as anorexic.

Oh fuck off, then fuck off some more, until you disappear into the horizon.

I have mentioned a friend of mine and her kid is trans.

I've known them since they were 9 and now 32 and they've never been happier than in the last 7 years since they felt comfortable in as identifying as trans.

If they were anorexic, would you collude with them and encourage them in them identifying as fat ?

If you genuinely think being trans is analogous to being anorexic then there's no point in having a discussion with you.

StillWaters said:

kyf_100 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Barnesian said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Theuniondivvie said:

She really has curdled into a petty, old boot.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1852715478461890626

May be, like Tennant, you “just wish [her] to shut up”?

Or dream of a world where you wake up and she “ doesn’t exist”?

(Snip)

The problem is that many anti-trans people don't want trans people to exist, deny they exist, and/or want to make it impossible for them to transition at any age.

Hence calling transmen "confused lesbians", or transwomen "men in skirts", and the attempts to stop trans people from using womens toilets.

That is definitely not Rowling's position.
On her blog:
"Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."
That's the issue. The vast majority of people are not anti-trans. They are supportive or just not interested. The problem lies with the very small minority of trans activists who are trying to coerce the rest of us to not only accept self identification (fair enough) but use the law to enforce the right of Self ID trans to have access to women's spaces.

I'm supportive of animal rights but not animal rights activists.
I'm supportive of protection of the environment and action on climate change, but not of the extreme activists.
The activists do more harm than good to their cause. Including trans activists.
And yes I know about the suffragettes. I don't think the extremists helped their cause.

She also routinely misgenders people. If she meant what she said above, she wouldn't. It strikes me as being like a racist who knows and likes one black person, and therefore thinks it excuses racism towards others. "Of course I'm not racist; an old friend of mine is black."

I'm unsure that "The vast majority of people are not anti-trans." It'd be interesting to see figures on that.

Even the tweet mocking David Tennant today is a low blow.

One of Tennant's children is, IIRC, trans / gender non-conforming.

To use an analogy people on here might understand, Leon didn't just get the banhammer for casual racism, it was because he offended to the core people whose partners and children are non-white, by implying their loved ones had less value than 'white babies'. And that felt like a visceral, personal attack.

To some of us, trans people aren't just strange concepts that only exist in theory, they are our friends, family and loved ones. And when people make comments that seek to erase their existence, as Rowling frequently does, e.g. with the casual misgendering, it wounds to the very core.

Rowling's transphobia is out there in the open for all to see.

I don't want to get involved in a long, drawn out debate on the trans issue. But I do want to stand up for, and speak up for, the people I love.

David Tennant wasn't some rich lefty
engaging in virtue signalling. He was a father standing up for his child's right to exist.

Nobody should be made to feel less valid as a human being because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender identity. Rowling, sadly, has a great deal of form with the latter.

Tennant’s attack was on Badenoch and he wished for a world where she didn’t exist and that she would shut up.

If wishing for a world where Badenoch doesn't exist and that she would shut up is a sin, then there are a lot of sinners, including half of PB.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh.

The NHS will pay the King’s duchy £11m over 15 years to rent a warehouse for ambulances...it is being charged 67% more than the previous tenants paid.

Great reporting from Sunday Times Insight team
@Arbuthnott

@JCalvertST

@KatieTarrant_

@thetimes

https://x.com/ShaunLintern/status/1852748219391860988

Landlord charges tenant rent shock

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh.

The NHS will pay the King’s duchy £11m over 15 years to rent a warehouse for ambulances...it is being charged 67% more than the previous tenants paid.

Great reporting from Sunday Times Insight team
@Arbuthnott

@JCalvertST

@KatieTarrant_

@thetimes

https://x.com/ShaunLintern/status/1852748219391860988

Landlord charges tenant rent shock

Your spinning for the Royal Family is one of the stranger things I’ve seen here. What’s your angle?

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

StillWaters said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

She really has curdled into a petty, old boot.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1852715478461890626

What is the David Tennant angle?

If you click through there is a spiked article about the LGBT awards where he said the he dreamt of a world where Kemi Badenoch didn’t exist.

David Tennant proves that he is an arsehole.

David Tennant is lovely.

He's the father of a trans child.

He's immensely protective of them.

So protection extends to personal abuse then?

Have you ever been upset and commented publicly in strong terms when political matters impact your children?

Yes. And I've never said the world would be better off if the other person didn't exist.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh.

The NHS will pay the King’s duchy £11m over 15 years to rent a warehouse for ambulances...it is being charged 67% more than the previous tenants paid.

Great reporting from Sunday Times Insight team
@Arbuthnott

@JCalvertST

@KatieTarrant_

@thetimes

https://x.com/ShaunLintern/status/1852748219391860988

Landlord charges tenant rent shock

Landlord charges tenant current market rent (even bigger shock)..

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour’s support in Scotland has plunged in the wake of Rachel Reeves’s budget, which voters believe will hit them in their pockets and damage the country, a new poll has found.

Backing for Anas Sarwar’s party has dropped to such an extent that it would be virtually impossible for him to form a Scottish government if the results were replicated at the Holyrood 2026 election.

The poll by Norstat, the first conducted in Scotland since the chancellor unveiled her tax and spending plans, suggested that while voters felt warmly about the budget’s main policies, they felt that they would lose out overall.

The research put support for Labour in Scottish parliamentary constituencies at 23 per cent, a drop of seven points since the last survey in August and the lowest since Nicola Sturgeon quit as first minister last March. Backing for Scottish Labour on the more proportional regional list fell by six points to 22 per cent.

Analysis by Sir John Curtice, the polling expert and professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, found this would leave Labour with 29 MSPs, an increase of seven on its current level.

The SNP has failed to capitalise on Labour’s woes — remaining unchanged on 33 per cent for constituency votes and increasing backing by only one point to 29 per cent on the regional list — but its projected return of 51 MSPs would almost certainly see John Swinney remain first minister despite losing 13 seats compared with the 2021 election.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-labour-popularity-poll-rachel-reeves-budget-2024-5jmhqwjkr

It's Scotland, so a real longshot,but one wonders what the upper limits of how well the SCons might do up there are.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour’s support in Scotland has plunged in the wake of Rachel Reeves’s budget, which voters believe will hit them in their pockets and damage the country, a new poll has found.

Backing for Anas Sarwar’s party has dropped to such an extent that it would be virtually impossible for him to form a Scottish government if the results were replicated at the Holyrood 2026 election.

The poll by Norstat, the first conducted in Scotland since the chancellor unveiled her tax and spending plans, suggested that while voters felt warmly about the budget’s main policies, they felt that they would lose out overall.

The research put support for Labour in Scottish parliamentary constituencies at 23 per cent, a drop of seven points since the last survey in August and the lowest since Nicola Sturgeon quit as first minister last March. Backing for Scottish Labour on the more proportional regional list fell by six points to 22 per cent.

Analysis by Sir John Curtice, the polling expert and professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, found this would leave Labour with 29 MSPs, an increase of seven on its current level.

The SNP has failed to capitalise on Labour’s woes — remaining unchanged on 33 per cent for constituency votes and increasing backing by only one point to 29 per cent on the regional list — but its projected return of 51 MSPs would almost certainly see John Swinney remain first minister despite losing 13 seats compared with the 2021 election.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-labour-popularity-poll-rachel-reeves-budget-2024-5jmhqwjkr

It's Scotland, so a real longshot,but one wonders what the upper limits of how well the SCons might do up there are.

When was the last time we had a party leader with a name as ostentatiously Scottish as Badenoch?

MoonRabbit said:

Andy_JS said:

Main item on the NYT front page.

"Why Are Democrats Having Such a Hard Time Beating Donald Trump?"

https://www.nytimes.com

I still don’t think we have any party anywhere in world, in power during this historic credit crunch after Covid reboot, who have won their election.

Even dominant parties in Japan and Botswana who rarely or never lose, have been defeated.

This was a change year in US politics, if Dems win it (they won’t though) it would all be down to what a totally abysmal unelectable candidate Donald Trump actually was.

The GOP have lost their way and need a reset. If Dems get another 4 years here, with voters knowing they are worse off and seriously feeling it, it’s a bonus, and everything Dems do with the power will be a bonus.

Incumbent Saskatchewan Party just won re-election in . . . wait for it . . . Saskatchewan!

Addendum - Ditto the incumbent provincial New Democratic Party in British Columbia.

However, in both case opposition parties made significant gains, and ALMOST prevailed.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour’s support in Scotland has plunged in the wake of Rachel Reeves’s budget, which voters believe will hit them in their pockets and damage the country, a new poll has found.

Backing for Anas Sarwar’s party has dropped to such an extent that it would be virtually impossible for him to form a Scottish government if the results were replicated at the Holyrood 2026 election.

The poll by Norstat, the first conducted in Scotland since the chancellor unveiled her tax and spending plans, suggested that while voters felt warmly about the budget’s main policies, they felt that they would lose out overall.

The research put support for Labour in Scottish parliamentary constituencies at 23 per cent, a drop of seven points since the last survey in August and the lowest since Nicola Sturgeon quit as first minister last March. Backing for Scottish Labour on the more proportional regional list fell by six points to 22 per cent.

Analysis by Sir John Curtice, the polling expert and professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, found this would leave Labour with 29 MSPs, an increase of seven on its current level.

The SNP has failed to capitalise on Labour’s woes — remaining unchanged on 33 per cent for constituency votes and increasing backing by only one point to 29 per cent on the regional list — but its projected return of 51 MSPs would almost certainly see John Swinney remain first minister despite losing 13 seats compared with the 2021 election.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-labour-popularity-poll-rachel-reeves-budget-2024-5jmhqwjkr

It's Scotland, so a real longshot,but one wonders what the upper limits of how well the SCons might do up there are.

When was the last time we had a party leader with a name as ostentatiously Scottish as Badenoch?

2016.

David William Donald Cameron.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BIB - What the fuck? Is our parliament not sovereign ?

he ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries.

Even parliament has been denied access to the list of landholdings held by the royals.

Today, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals the full details of the property estates owned by Charles and Prince William, and the tax-free business deals they have struck to maintain their wealth. The King is worth £610 million, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

Here for the first time is every plot of land owned by the King and prince through their private fiefdoms — the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/how-royals-make-millions-king-charles-prince-william-27lkftd2n

Why the hell should Parliament have anything to do with private royal duchy land? Yet more of your republican crap!

Profits of those duchies help ensure no taxpayer funds needed for the Prince of Wales and with the crown estate profits no taxpayer funds for the King beyond security either.

You also ignore the good the Duchies do 'A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall.”'

If its private land then did William pay inheritance tax on everything he inherited privately beyond the tax free allowance everyone is entitled to?

Why should he? The fact he doesn't means taxpayers don't have to fund him.

Farmers also shouldn't on their lands nor should family businesses whatever Labour think

He should because everyone should be treated equally.

Taxpayers shouldn't fund him either, but he should pay the same taxes as you or me.

If he did pay inheritance tax, taxpayers would have to pay for new furniture and paintings in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle ultimately

Nah, sell them off.

All true Conservatives prefer things in the private sector rather than being paid for by the state.

Socialists like you belong in the Labour Party.

Imagine me asking for the state to buy me a new kitchen or a new decorative scheme. In my family house.

Even worse, imagine Tories thinking it just fine and dandy for me to do that.

The Duchies belong to the monarch and Prince privately, they do not belong to the state

So if they're owned privately was IHT paid on it, as any other private inheritance faces?

No as otherwise taxpayers would have to fund the Prince of Wales

Why

As his duties as Prince of Wales are for the State and his role as heir to the throne and next Head of State and need funding

OK so pay him a salary for doing that job.

Say £50,000 per annum sounds reasonable to me.

If he doesn't want to do that job for that salary, let him resign and find someone else willing to do it.

Not a reason to allow him to dodge £400 million in IHT that should be due.

That you think it is, shows how bad value for money you are.

It would be £200k plus per annum for all working royals paid for by taxpayers unlike now.

The Duchies also provide affordable homes and renewable energy schemes and farmland etc which would all ultimately have to go if they paid IHT

So he pays £400m taxes due and then we pay him £200k salary?

I can live with that. Though that's way more than I think he needs.

No he would have to cut or sell renewable energy schemes and affordable homes on his land to pay for the IHT and sell more land to developers at full price

So?