BS: 1066 and all that

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: DaveRo
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 11:37 AM

'Bastard' was ambiguous too.

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Stu
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 11:28 AM

"Ancestors?"

Pardon?

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 11:25 AM

Ancestors?

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 10:41 AM

Does this anniverary take into account changes in calendars?

Up the rebels!

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Stu
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 10:40 AM

The Prince of Wales also uses his inherited status to influence our democratically elected politicians to his or his mate's own ends. The Bastard would be pleased to see his ancestors still wielding power in such a way.

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 10:02 AM

OK. I'm just emailing my tax office to see if I can make my tax-paying voluntary. Won't be a minute...

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: DaveRo
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 09:58 AM

The Prince of Wales receives income from the Duchy of Cornwall not the Civil List. Recently he's been (voluntarily) paying tax on it so 'we' do get something out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM

You forgot to take account of his army of accountants.

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 09:13 AM

Steve Shaw wrote: Prince BigEars, no matter how benevolent you think he is, makes massive profits out of the efforts of his tenants.

Not true. Never heard of the Crown Estates? All profits from Royal Estates go directly to the Treasury. In exchange the Royal Family recieve money in the form of the Civil List. The last accounting I heard of the amount paid in to the treasury was greater than the amount paid out. We all get a little profit out of our Royal Family.

Galling aint it?

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 07:03 AM

Harolds famous last words, ' watch him, he'll have some fuckers eye out with that '

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 06:59 AM

I don't do envy. I'm one of the luckier members of the baby-boomers. The usurping of land that doesn't belong to you, land that you did not make, in order to exploit the labour of other people who you make subservient to you, is a moral matter. Nothing to do with envy. That's just you trying to derail the argument. Prince BigEars, no matter how benevolent you think he is, makes massive profits out of the efforts of his tenants. At the same time, he goes around so that children the world over can wave cheap flags at him and enjoys life to the full in resplendent luxury and makes silly speeches from a position of ignorance about architecture and the environment, and you can't see through him.

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Stu
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 06:14 AM

I don't recognise their right to own the land that was stolen, nor that of those that own land that was formerly unenclosed.

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 05:53 AM

Politics of envy again Shaw? I believe that there already is a tax on land and if coupled with what Stu advocates it would all be parcelled up into smallholdings that wouldn't be "penalised".

If our "professional politicians" ran the country as efficiently and as profitably as Prince "BigEars" Duchy of Cornwall the country would be in damned good shape.

As for Stu's giving the land back to the people they stole it from might rob many in our multi-cultural society and would raise questions about how far back you would have to go. It would mean of course forcing people to go back to the land, something that the vast majority are totally unsuited for - a guy called Pol Pot tried it out in Cambodia and that turned out quite nicely didn't it - lots were killed, even more starved.

The pair of you can keep your "Brave New World"

Subject: RE: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 05:30 AM

Couldn't agree more. And it wouldn't half improve the land. No more tenant farmers whose blood, sweat and tears goes into the coffers of the landed gentry. Working solely for your own good, which would mean for the good of the land. More birds, more butterflies, more bees, more flowers, no more neonicotinoids, land in good heart, no more barley barons... and more food and better food because, unlike now, the land would be used efficiently, appropriately and intensively. We could start with a tax on land. Instead of taxing people's blood, sweat and tears, we would tax that which was acquired by theft (enclosure being a euphemism for that, of course) and which no-one ever made. And you can't hide your land offshore A graduated land tax (graduated so that the smallholder and small family farmer wouldn't be penalised, and land quality, not just acreage, would be taken into account) would soon have the fat cats such as Prince BigEars ditching their holdings.

Subject: BS: 1066 and all that
From: Stu
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 04:55 AM

Today sees the 950th Anniversary of the Battle of Hastings, when Harold was beaten by William the Bastard and English rule came to an end in their own land. Nearly a millennia on, we still live under a norman feudal system and our aristocracy is pretty much the same bunch of interlopers as then.

It's all summed up by this quote the late Duke of Westminster gave to the FT:

"An FT reporter, working through a standard set of questions, once asked him what advice he'd give to young entrepreneurs keen to emulate his success.

"Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror," he replied."

Hilarious. Isn't it time we got rid of these spongers and gave the land back to the people they stole it from? After that, time to reverse the thieving Acts of Enclosure!