"Pray enlighten us in what way the Normans were right to invade a sovereign nation with a named and chosen successor, steal the land (as is the way with conquerors) and re-distribute it amongst a few knights, and most importantly (don't duck this one Tezza lad) how the slaughter of innocent people and the laying waste of parts of the country was justified*

*Remember - these were the people that actually lived and farmed here. - Sugarfoot Jack

Really Sugarfoot??

Pray enlighten us in what way the Anglo-Saxons were right to invade sovereign kingdoms with named and chosen successors, steal the land (as is the way with conquerors) and re-distribute it amongst a few to create the Heptarchy as they undeniably did, and most importantly (don't duck this one Sugarfoot lad) how the slaughter of innocent people and the laying waste of parts of the country was justified*

*Remember - these were the people that actually lived and farmed here.

Oh by the way Sugarfoot was Harold Godwinson any blood relation of Edward the Confessor? Duke William of Normandy was - one has a "RIGHT" to inherit, the other DOES NOT. Under what agreement was he the named Successor? But to get back to the point you raised -

Pray enlighten us in what way the Romans were right to invade sovereign kingdoms with named and chosen successors, steal the land (as is the way with conquerors) and re-distribute it amongst a few regional Governors and annex it all to Rome, and most importantly (don't duck this one Sugarfoot lad) how the slaughter of innocent people and the laying waste of parts of the country was justified*

*Remember - these were the people that actually lived and farmed here.

There you go Sugarfoot we are now back to about AD 43 - do you want me to go on???

Will Fly Thank goodness the PoW does even although strictly speaking he is not "allowed" to in public - stating something to a third party in private correspondence that is subsequently "leaked" is not airing or expressing your opinion to the world and its dog, different thing altogether.

Steve Shaw "Abiding by the law of the land and not trying to evade tax, as the royal estates endeavour to do"

I sincerely hope that you have proof to back up that outrageous accusation?? Remembering of course that Tax evasion is a crime and subjects the guilty party to fines or even imprisonment.

"tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, firms, trusts and other entities to evade the payment of taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and includes, in particular, dishonest tax reporting (such as underdeclaring income, profits or gains; or overstating deductions)."

The dealings of those who administer the three entities I mentioned must be the most closely audited enterprises I know off a fact that you appear to be blissfully unaware of.

Being the conscientious citizen that you are Steve no doubt you have reported your suspicions to the Tax Authorities and the Police (There is a reward you know for turning in Tax evaders - 10% of the sum owed), your accusation of course must have been accompanied by your irrefutable evidence. No of course you haven't because as with most of your comments to this thread you are talking from a degree of total ignorance that would amaze and astound any rational human being.

By the way Steve hows this for inefficiency when it comes to running and building a business (and tax evasion when it comes to it):

1990 - Income to the Exchequer from The Crown Estate £55million

2001 - Income to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate £148million

That despite the fact that the actually value of The Crown Estate went from £2.4billion in 1990 to £1.7billion in 1993 then recovered to the value of £4billion under these inefficient criminal bastards in 2001. The value of The Crown Estate by 2004 was £4.6billion and today it is worth something like just over £7 billion.

2011 - Income to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate £230.9million

Oh Steve and here is the real "kicker" for your argument - the vast bulk of The Crown Estate lies in URBAN property bought and sold in exactly the same way that anyone else buys any property. Crown Estate lands in Scotland were practically all bought, those that weren't came from reversion of Church Lands owned by the Episcopacy. Land bequeathed to the Church which reverted to the Crown so no robbery there either.

What British people were you claiming were robbed again??