RuamRudy

It would be interesting to know exactly what Charles did to acquire those multitude of stately homes, palaces and vast swathes of land across the UK. I suspect, like his mother before him, he has done diddly squat to acquire them. Had he been taxed like us mere mortals upon inheriting them, it would be a start, but my preference would be to turn them over in their entirety to the people of the UK. Property which can be shown to have been purchased by his family could be kept, Castle Mey, for example, but those which have been passed down from one incumbent to the next by dint of being stolen in bygone times should revert to the people of the UK and all royal ties and obligations be cut.

The hopefully the police will be given full and unhindered access to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

Democracy doesn't always give pretty results, but having a choice is preferable to not. Are you suggesting we should do away with all forms of popular mandate?

So he is on a par with Esther Rantzen but much, much more costly. Thanks for clarifying.

He gets other people to give their money to charities? We have Children in Need for that. Give me something more tangible than that.

Several things to unpack there. Firstly, if Blair was, God forbid, president, it would be because he won a mandate from the electorate, and would be accountable to them. He could be replaced if the electorate so desired. Tourists don't come to see Charles. They don't get to spend time with him and his family. They come to see the history of the British isles. Much in the same way that they go to France to see their palaces and historical sights. As to his actual role, well that would need to be defined and codified but the question remains, how does the British royal family make life better for UK citizens?

You have called her a prostitute on several occasions and I have shown you that it's illegal in England to purchase sex from someone under the age of 18. So by your own criticism of her you acknowledge that she is a victim.

No, I asked what Charles has done to improve the lives of the people of the UK. You seem unable to identify anything either.

If only the supreme court judges were as knowledgeable of the law as you seem to be... https://time.com/6335423/uk-migrants-rwanda-plan-unlawful/

I am pretty sure that the trafficking minors for sex is illegal in England, but then again I have not spent a lot of time looking for get out clauses. What I have discovered, however, is that it is illegal to pay someone under the age of 18 for sex. In fact, English law is clear - if someone is engaged in sex work under the age of 18 (and it is you who insists on calling her a prostitute) then she is considered to be a child and a victim. She is not a sex worker, as English law makes clear. She is the victim of predatory men and women who are exploiting her. In the UK at 17 you cannot vote, fight for your country or get married without parental consent. She was not emancipated in the eyes of the law. I bow to your obviously superior knowledge about the nuances of noncery. I am afraid that, as is so often the case, you are wrong. See the link I supplied above to to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Ditto my previous point. We are not talking about a 50 year old and a 30 year old. We are talking about a powerful adult and a child. To suggest that there is no difference between that and two adults of significantly differing ages grossly insults those forum members who are in consensual adult relationships. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is your friend. Read it and understand why you are wrong.

Of course, I have never personally handed over anything to him or his mother for 2 important reasons - firstly, I object to their presence so would resist any requirement to do so personally, but also they like to remain aloof from the hoi poloi and rather that their flunkies go out to fleece the population directly from the treasury. The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £345m In what ways has he improved the lives of the people of the UK? What specifically has he done for the betterment of the population. Like his mother, he has interfered in the formulation of laws proposed or being drafted by Westminster and Holyrood, and presumably the Senedd and Stormont, literally hundreds of times - but not once did either of them do so for the sake of the population. Each and every time was to carve out concessions for themselves and their family to ensure that they remain insulated and protected from having to comply with the laws that our democratically elected government decree. Revealed: Queen’s sweeping immunity from more than 160 laws Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate Revealed: Queen vetted 67 laws before Scottish parliament could pass them Queen secretly lobbied Scottish government ministers for climate law exemption The Queen Used Her Lobbying Powers To Avoid Scotland’s New Green Energy Law The reality is that they do nothing to help the people of the UK; their focus is on further enriching themselves and shoring up their family position so that future generations of parasitic Windsors can continue to exploit the UK taxpayers.

All blocked because what the government was proposing is illegal.

He has tac exemptions that are not available to anyone else. Why is that? He is not special? He has no remarkable qualities that makes the lives of the rest of us better. He is simply a man who has done nothing in his entire life to better the people of the UK, but sat with his hand out each and every day and had us hand over more and more to him.

What has that got to do with taxes? Why is he exempt from paying his way? He did not create the crown estates and he does not manage them - he simply consumes without giving back.

Stephen Sanchez - Until I Found You

The thing is, the law recognises that 17 year olds are not sufficiently mature enough to make the right choices in life. That is why 18 or even 21 is the age of majority in most countries. Furthermore, I refuse to believe that even the sassiest, most streetwise 17 year old child is sufficiently sophisticated to be able to make rational decisions whilst under pressure from billionaire bankers or paedophile children of the queen of England. To suggest that she was an equal partner in Andrew's having sex with a trafficked child is beyond comprehensible, but you keep siding with the nonces if you wish.

You'd have to be sailing pretty close to the wind, morally, to suggest that a 16 year old, coerced into a world of power where, in her words, she was passed around internationally powerful people like a plate of meat, was master of her own fate.

Normally you get pretty het up about adults coercing children into sexual situations where the power dynamic is massively one sided, or are you now suggesting that all these Muslim grooming gangs that plague England are actually just transactional, victimless affairs?

I guess it should come down to what is most reliable and safe - a car controlled by a human or one controlled by a computer.

Your willingness to vigorously support a man alleged to have been involved in the sex trafficking of children is as concerning as your obsession with Meghan Markle.

If he truly cared about the lot of his peasants, he might consider myriad ways of helping - like paying taxes, paying for himself and his obscenely rich, obscenely indolent family rather than relying on the hard working people of the UK to fund their luxury.

Clearly comprehension is not your forte, but go ahead and confirm it. I am intrigued to see how might justify your utter failure to understand what you read.

Television - Marquee Moon

Big Star - Thirteen

Keep the Customer Satisfied - Simon & Garfunkel