Prince Charles Bulls**t

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Apparently: Charles has been successfully lobbying the government on policy for years. The Guardian have sought access to correspondence detailing some of his influence over the years. The Attorney general has seen fit to veto any access to the correspondence as it will compromise Charles's position of neutrality as king.

Basically, we now know that Charles is over stepping the mark and seeking to influence government policy, only we are not allowed to know the specific details.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oc...harles-letters

What does all this say of our 'democracy'?

Pexbo

Alastair to the rescue in 3...2....1

Jaz

The monarchy has the right to influence the government.

alastair

As long as the poor remain downtrodden, our evil overlords will be happy. Bastards.

esmufc14

It's about time we ditched the Monarchy anyway.

Jimy_Hills_Chin

711

Tell what his successes have been and then I'll decide.

VidaRed

How long before the yanks drop bombs to spread democracy ?

peterstorey

No one pays any attention to Big Ears, his mum would have handed over the reins years ago if he wasn't such a wanker.

Wibble

Nice to see the government fighting for democracy and transparency.

I hope the Guardian appeal and win.

Grinner

The rich know what's best for us. They are trained for this shit from birth.

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Well you would have thought that 'they' wouldn't have given the front door keys to Britain's maximum security criminal psychiatric unit to a shell suit wearing weirdo paedophile....................but 'they' did.

They won't, that is the point.

711

How do you know they're successes at all then?

alastair

Let's be honest - Prince Charles is not a bad person. You might disagree with the concept of his role and position in society, but there's no way he's actually a horrible bloke.

Kaos

That's besides the point. If he's as harmless as you're making him out to be then surely he could afford to make public those details. All this vetoing and general pussyfooting around is only going to draw further suspicion and vitriol.

Moriarty

No, the monarchy thinks it has the right to influence government. I thought we'd made our position clear on that in 1649.

Crustanoid

I think its time we ditched the government. Well this particular one anyhow. Probably even more pressing than getting rid of the monarchy given the absolute carnage they are wreaking with the country

Wibble

I think that is exactly what he is. A arrogant, conceited and privileged idiot who wants to push his elitist views on things like architecture or simply dimwitted views of alternative medicine. That he not only has such huge influence but is also allowed to have this influence in total secrecy is beyond belief.

711

What huge influence?

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Lord Rogers, the Labour peer and architect whose schemes have been previously torpedoed by the prince's private interventions, said he believed the government's decision would continue to allow the royal "to do the damage and disappear without a trace".

Do you believe that he is not being successful? In the first instance, he shouldn't even be attempting to influence policy anyway, it is overstepping the mark - without question.

Moriarty

I don't know if there's any evidence that Charles has attempted to influence government policy (though I stand to be corrected) but he has interfered in private business dealings that, arguably, have a government component to them; e.g. Chelsea Barracks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...racks-planning

711

He lobbied against his architecture, in the open, and nearly everyone agreed with him. Rogers will be aggrieved, so what?

You are arguing two separate things, firstly that he lobbies successfully, but apart from the carbuncle thing, I ask again, what?

I don't think the royal family should try and influence policy either, I haven't questioned that.

rcoobc

How many governments have kept this a secret?

Can we chop his head off like his namesake?

Jimy_Hills_Chin

OK. Fair enough, there is no cast iron proof that he has successfully changed government policy. The article states that 'Lord Rogers, the Labour peer and architect whose schemes have been previously torpedoed by the prince's private interventions'

and Katy Clark is quoted as saying

"The more you hear about the lobbying that Charles has undertaken over decades, the more inappropriate it seems," she said. "My concern is that government policy has been changed and it would seem to me that Prince Charles should not be allowed to hold undue influence over aspects of health policy and architectural policy where he has little experience."

I think that it is in the public interest to hear the contents of these letters that are, at the least, attempting to influence government policy.

We are a democratic nation after all.

Grinner

Why can't a bloke write a letter expressing his thoughts on a policy? If he said summat like 'build that fucker and I'll set the paras on you' then that's one thing, but lobbying the govt, as is the right of everybody, is something else.

711

I would agree it's in the public interest as well. I think what Charlie has said himself is that he thinks he should be allowed to put forward political views now, but would stop when he became king. Personally I think if he wants to have political influence he should do a Wedgie Benn and renounce his title. Some other geezer would take his place.

rcoobc

Cus we have an argreement with them queens and kingsis. They get to remain kings and queenses as long as they shut their trap.

Otherwise we follow them frenchies.

alastair

How awful it is that someone is privileged.

That's such a bizarre post - accusing someone of being arrogant whilst at the same time calling him dimwitted and using his birth as a stick to beat him with.

He doesn't have a lot of influence - you and the student newspaper that is the Guardian like to believe it because it suits the agenda.

Grinner

He has access, but not necessarily influence.

rcoobc

To be fair, Charles is an arrogant dimwitted privileged twat.

711

Ah, but imagine if alastair was a cabinet minister. He'd jump through fucking hoops naked with a rose in his mouth if Charlie asked him too. Which he very well might, as it happens.

paceme

Wasn't there a massive petition against that anyway? It was basically some Qatari douchebags wanting to build some god ugly flats and Charles made them change plans so the buildings reflected the area it was in.

Lord Rodgers buildings look like shit aswell.

Grinner

Well then the minister is the problem, not Charles.

rcoobc

Anyone who champions homeopathy has no place in any position of power.

Anyone who gives a speech to the World Health Organisation on the merits of homeopathy should be locked up, or possibly injected with life threatening diseases and given minuscule doses of medicine.

paceme

What do his views on health have to do with this?

alastair

The day being privileged is a bad thing is a really sad one. Obviously the royals take it to extremes, but to use it as an insult? 'Look at him, how privileged he is.' It's not a bad thing.

Grinner

I agree with that. Privilege is a bad thing only if you waste it.

rcoobc

Everything, given that he was lobbying WHO and the Government on Alternative Medicine. He has been abusing his position of power for years, a position of power he achieved through the clever use of being born to a Princess.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...e-for-NHS.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/wo...yals.html?_r=0

rcoobc

But how do you know he didn't mean it that way. Wibble didn't call him "privileged" and leave it at that. He said he is an "arrogant, conceited and [privileged] idiot". He had every opportunity in life. He could have done anything.

Instead he champions homeotherapy, lobbies government officials over policies, and uses his influence to sway opinion on.. buildings that he likes and buildings that he doesnt, alternative medicine, religion, shit.

paceme

I think people have issue with it being considered good more than anything and overreact to it.