General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTime to strip them all of special legal privileges-Prince Charles faces political campaign
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/30/prince-charles-westminster-campaign-strip-special-legal-privileges<snip>
Prince Charles is facing a Westminster campaign to strip him and his estate of special privileges including tax exemptions, a power of veto over new laws and immunity from legislation covering everything from squatting to planning.
A radical bill is to be put before the House of Lords proposing to remove special treatment of the prince and the Duchy of Cornwall, his inherited £800m estate that provides him with a £19m a year private income.
The move, by the old-Etonian Labour peer Lord Berkeley, also exposes little-known exemptions from laws enforced on everyone else by at least eight acts of parliament.
In his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, the prince cannot be prosecuted for breaches of planning laws such as building without permission or breaking the terms of planning consents, which would normally attract fines of up to £50,000. The prince's estate also enjoys an exemption from people registering land under squatters' rights or other forms of "adverse possession" until they have occupied it for 60 years, compared with 10 years for other landowners. Neither is it obliged to allow Duchy leaseholders to buy their freeholds.
----------------------
Are the DuPonts any different - the affluenza rules must be abolished
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Well, the veto is meaningless anyway. Firstly, it's a veto held by the monarch, not the heir, and it hasn't been used since Elizabeth the First anyway and would cause a constitutional crisis if it was.
I'm fine with stripping the majority of the tax exemptions. The legal exemptions depend on what exactly they are since, like most people, I didn't know they existed before now.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But putting aside this pedantry your point is still a valid one.
malaise
(269,022 posts)<snip>
Over the past four years, the government has hired lawyers to contest a series of hearings into whether the letters said by Grieve to contain the prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs" should be released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.
Two years ago, the independent freedom of information tribunal ruled against the government and ordered that the letters should be published as the public should know how the prince had sought to influence ministers in the last Labour government.
This perception, he added, "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".
The veto was challenged by the Guardian in the courts. The government lost again this month when the master of the rolls, Lord Dyson, and two other judges decided that Grieve had acted unreasonably when he overrode the freedom of information tribunal. Dyson also ordered the attorney general to pay the Guardian's legal costs, totalling £96,000.
More at link
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)For fuck's sake, by ALL accounts, he's a decent fellow and an environmentalist!!! When they strip CORPORATIONS of their tax loopholes, THEN I might feel differently.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I really need to think about this more but, that is my first take on all this.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)I think he should definitely pay taxes on his income and estates. However, if you're going to allow a monarchy and nobility in your country, you also have to recognize that they're going to have special privileges. In other words, a monarchy will cost you something. If you want to get rid of it because it costs too much, that is the people's right. But if you benefit from having a monarchy, you might want to think twice about it.
I think all of it is ridiculous, myself, but it does bring in tourists who are obsessed with all the trappings of monarchy, and a lot of people make their living by serving those people, so I can understand why Brits mostly support the monarchy.
malaise
(269,022 posts)None whatsoever. They perpetuate our disgusting system of privilege. All men and women are created equal.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)some odd reason. I guess they like it because people in their former colonies come to visit and spend money there just so they can look at the castles and hopefully see the Queen or some other royal. That's the only reason I can think of to keep the monarchy, and I really don't think that's a very good reason. People will still come to visit. People interested in history and such will come to see their attractions and they don't need the Queen to play hostess.
I really think it would be a blessing to the royal family if they were legally treated like everyone else and paid taxes like everyone else. Release them from the burden of showing up for ribbon-cuttings and all the tourist shit and leave them alone.
malaise
(269,022 posts)that Britain is now an American colony
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)Our intelligence agencies share with theirs and there's a lot of partnership there. Our government colludes with theirs, like Clinton and Blair. I don't know if we're a British colony or if they've become an American colony, but we're definitely all tied up with each other. Britain's future is just part of America's future.