Off Topic Trevor Sinclair
- Thread starter Oliver's Army
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
C
Chunksafc
Guest
So all landowners in the UK should give their land back to the people or just the royal family?
People who were gifted it as part of a royal settlement. It belongs to the people of Britain who have paid for it and wealth should be recycled back into the people to good. It’s ethical and logical and only those who exploit their power wouldn’t accept it.
This argument is full of holes and demonstrates a glaring misunderstanding of what constitutes historical significance. Speaking as a 'heritage professional' historical significance is based on a number of things, including context. Britain's historic palaces are of interest because, unlike many other countries, we have an extant royal family. Using any criteria that would be applied during a 'heritage impact assessment' removing the Royal family would have a serious impact on the context of these buildings- removing this context would result in a 'major irreversible adverse impact' (the technical term that would be applied) on the way in which these heritage assets are understood and experienced.
Who's land is what? Land belongs to the landowner.
C
Chunksafc
Guest
So people who acquired land by buying it cheap and exploiting the existing land owners lack of knowledge to then sell at a huge profits would be exempt?
Yes. The way it is understood and experienced is different to the way Buckingham Palace, for example, is understood because it is essentially just a museum, not a working, living palace.
There’s a conversation to be had about all kind for me. If it places people in poverty. There needs to be a right to roam. Do you think it’s ethical what the Duke of Westminster earns ?
C
Chunksafc
Guest
Answer the question, is it right to buy land knowing the seller has a lack of knowledge and as such sells it cheap, therefore denying him it's true value?
Edit. The only beneficiary of the cheap land is the person buying it by the way
River Slut & Farnboro . . . . stop it, man 
Just ignoring each other would be better than acting like this
Just ignoring each other would be better than acting like this
But it's appeal is different to Buckingham Palace, because it doesn't have the unique context that Buck House does. People visit Buckingham Palace because they want to visit the Queen's house.
The way this thread's going Trevor Sinclair will end up looking the most sensible and reasonable
The child is a grade A ****er. He can **** off and once he stops spouting his bile....I'll ignore him. Until then ... I'll keep having a go. You have banned posters for less but you allow this knob to keep posting ****e, as ge did on the thread The Queen.River Slut & Farnboro . . . . stop it, man
Just ignoring each other would be better than acting like this
Getting **** cos I’ve got friends over but a couple of things to answer before tomorrow -
Can Farnboro articulate what a leftie is to enlighten us all
Can someone share their views on the pay off of Giuffre to circumnavigate the rule of law and tell me if they think that’s who we want as head of state ?
Can Farnboro articulate what a leftie is to enlighten us all
Can someone share their views on the pay off of Giuffre to circumnavigate the rule of law and tell me if they think that’s who we want as head of state ?
C
Chunksafc
Guest
You must log in or register to see media
In an attempt to get this thread back on track and away from some of the more bizzare posts
- Status