"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to show,
encourage and help people to achieve

And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.

All previous criticisms confirmed.

Yep. very difficult to achieve when to put a basic roof over your head cost
the earth because of a planning system and land in the hands of a few people
artificially inflates land prices which mean house prices.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:23:57 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to show,
encourage and help people to achieve

And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.



Oh dear. What a lot of bigotted nonsense.....

Presumably, your idea of a "reasonable person" is somebody who doesn't
want to improve himself and is happy to sit back and let the state
organise his life for him.,....



--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:23:57 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to show,
encourage and help people to achieve

And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.

Oh dear. What a lot of bigotted nonsense.....

Presumably, your idea of a "reasonable person"

He is on about parasites. The Royal family and the British aristocracy are
the biggest parasites, along with their mates, through controlling land,
which means very high land prices, which means high rents and house prices.

is somebody who doesn't
want to improve himself and
is happy to sit back and let the state
organise his life for him.,....

When the system is stacked against him, he then doesn't bother. Millions of
people have left these shores for better opportunities abroad. Countries
which are far more open and don't have a layer of parasites creaming off.
These people who have left are people we could do with keeping.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:09:50 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:23:57 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to show,
encourage and help people to achieve

And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.

Oh dear. What a lot of bigotted nonsense.....

Presumably, your idea of a "reasonable person"

He is on about parasites. The Royal family and the British aristocracy are
the biggest parasites, along with their mates, through controlling land,
which means very high land prices, which means high rents and house prices.

Tring hard aren't you? :-)


is somebody who doesn't
want to improve himself and
is happy to sit back and let the state
organise his life for him.,....

When the system is stacked against him, he then doesn't bother.

That's simply defeatist.

Millions of
people have left these shores for better opportunities abroad.

When's your flight?


Countries
which are far more open and don't have a layer of parasites creaming off.
These people who have left are people we could do with keeping.

Countries, like people are a package deal.

You have to take the entire package. One aspect may appear good may
well be compensated by another that is not.



--

..andy

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

He is on about parasites. The Royal family and the British aristocracy are
the biggest parasites, along with their mates, through controlling land,
which means very high land prices, which means high rents and house prices.

Drivel barking up the wrong tree as usual. Land is cheap, in some cases
very cheap. You may not now be able to buy square miles of Highland
Scotland at £50 per acre but I bet some of it still goes somewhere near
that price. Outside the home counties I doubt whether you would find any
farm land at more that £4000 per acre. The much higher prices often
quoted actually disguises the fact that included in the purchase price
is a substantial mansion, outbuildings, etc.

The real reason that building land is so expensive is an excess of
demand over supply and the reason for that is twofold. The first is that
almost all of the most desirable urban real estate has long since been
built on and the second is that planning controls severely restrict
expansion into undeveloped areas. Planning controls that governments of
both persuasions have long deemed necessary for the ultimate good of the
country. Dribble of course who can't see as far as the end of his nose
with any clarity thinks that unrestricted development everywhere is a
good thing which should be a warning to us all.

--
Roger Chapman

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:20:48 +0000, tarquinlinbin
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:41:09 +0000, Andy Hall aka Matt
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:33:10 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , gastec
writes

Does anyone have views about the GMB union..
good or bad union?

Is that owt like a yorkshire fitting ?

Sort of. Both are unnecessary in the 21st century.

That very much depends on where your sitting. Many people in clerical
jobs or the various strata of management and the hallowed halls of
academia think that all that masty union stuff is to do with those low
grade manual workers and as people further up the economic and
intellectual chain, such things dont apply to them and are not to be
considered. Fact is that they need to consider them even more because
when the axe is wielded, it is often the mid sections that are cut
out!. Those on the front line i.e acutal production operatives ,are
still needed to keep companies going and to produce.

This is all a very limited view.

The real point is that an individual sells his skills and labour
either to an employer or to his own business.
This is no different to any other buying and selling of services and
products.

Matt you are so naive it is beyond belief. In a one industry, virtually one
company town, you can't just flit from one company to another. I suppose you
are going to say, then go to Canada. Duh!!

If a group of employees, who create the wealth, see massive profits and they
see only poor wages, they have the right to collectively say, we want some
of the action mate reflected in our wage packets.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:09:50 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:23:57 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall aka
Matt am wrote:
I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to
show,
encourage and help people to achieve

And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.

Oh dear. What a lot of bigotted nonsense.....

Presumably, your idea of a "reasonable person"

He is on about parasites. The Royal family
and the British aristocracy are
the biggest parasites, along with their mates,
through controlling land, which means very
high land prices, which means high rents
and house prices.

Tring hard aren't you? :-)

No. It is easy.

is somebody who doesn't
want to improve himself and
is happy to sit back and let the state
organise his life for him.,....

When the system is stacked against him, he then doesn't bother.

That's simply defeatist.

Nope.

Millions of people have left these shores
for better opportunities abroad.

When's your flight?

So Matt, you acknowledge that there are better opportunities aboard and that
the UK has a privileged strata who rip us off. That is encouraging from a
sycophant like yourself.

"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message
k...

The real reason that building land
is so expensive

Roger, you are wrong as usual. Rogerness is getting the better of you. This
is what Orwell said of the parasites, er sorry tapeworms:

"If giving the land of England back to the people of England is theft, I am
quite happy to call it theft. In his zeal to defend private property, my
correspondent does not stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land
got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to
provide them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common
lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the landgrabbers did not
even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly
taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except
that they had the power to do so. Except for the few surviving commons, the
high roads, the lands of the National Trust, a certain number of parks, and
the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of England is 'owned'
by a few thousand families. These people are just about as useful as so many
tapeworms. It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling houses,
and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can
actually farm. But the ground-landlord in a town area has no function and no
excuse for existence. He is merely a person who has found out a way of
milking the public while giving nothing in return. He causes rents to be
higher, he makes town planning more difficult, and he excludes children from
green spaces: that is literally all that he does, except to draw his income.
The removal of the railings in the squares was a first step against him. It
was a very small step, and yet an appreciable one, as the present move to
restore the railings shows. For three years or so the squares lay open, and
their sacred turf was trodden by the feet of working-class children, a sight
to make dividend-drawers gnash their false teeth. It that is theft, all I
can say is, so much the better for theft."
- George Orwell

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:10:14 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


So you acknowledge that there are better opportunities aboard and that
the UK has a privileged strata who rip us off.


There may be better opportunities for some people abroad and better
ones for some people here than they have today.

The next point is that "strata" is the plural of "stratum". Therefore
one cannot have "a stratum".

There aren't any privileged strata, only a set of people who having
less than others and being unwilling or unable to make anything of
themselves feel that the world owes them a living and that anyone with
more than they have is somehow ripping them off.

The reality is that you are ripping yourself off by sitting and
moaning rather than making an effort to achieve something.

It's sad to think that you believe that you are deluding others in
this respect but even more sad that you are deluding yourself.

Why don't you face up to reality and address your own issues.



--

..andy

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:03:59 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
.. .


The real point is that an individual sells his skills and labour
either to an employer or to his own business.
This is no different to any other buying and selling of services and
products.

You are so naive it is beyond belief.

Au contraire. The naivete comes from believing that some kind of
collective arrangement between suppliers can distort the market.
Ultimately it can't

In a one industry, virtually one
company town, you can't just flit from one company to another. I suppose you
are going to say, then go to Canada. Duh!!

If one is in a position where there is too much competition between
suppliers then one looks for alternative markets. These may be
geographical or with different products or services.


If a group of employees, who create the wealth, see massive profits and they
see only poor wages, they have the right to collectively say, we want some
of the action mate reflected in our wage packets.

This is a very narrow and old fashioned view.

The wealth is created by a combination of risk taking and investment
by the employer added to by the work done by the employees (whatever
that might be). The employer pays what he feels is appropriate for
the work delivered, which in turn is what his customers are willing to
pay him.

If said employees wish to live in a bygone era and talk about
collectively wanting some of the action (when in point of fact they
are getting it) then they can do so. However, they shouldn't be
surprised if the employer then chooses to shop elsewhere for his
labour. The more sensible approach would be to come to terms with
reality and provide the employer with a constructive and compelling
set of reasons why he would wish to pay more. Suggesting taking the
ball home is not an effective way of doing thst.



--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:10:14 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

So you acknowledge that there are
better opportunities aboard and that
the UK has a privileged strata who rip us off.

There may be better opportunities
for some people abroad and better
ones for some people here than they have today.

There are better opportunities for the Royal family and the Duke of
Westminster here, don't you think?

There aren't any privileged strata,

Matt, your sycophantness has really got the better of you.

The reality is that

....we have a privileged class that rip us all off. You have to repeat this
20 times each day until you understand.

** snip Mattness **

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

The real reason that building land
is so expensive

Roger, you are wrong as usual. Rogerness is getting the better of
you. This
is what Orwell said of the parasites, er sorry tapeworms:

Dribble you are a clueless ****wit.

"If giving the land of England back to the people of England is theft, I am
quite happy to call it theft. In his zeal to defend private property, my
correspondent does not stop to consider how the so-called owners of
the land
got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring
lawyers to
provide them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common
lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the landgrabbers did not
even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly
taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except
that they had the power to do so. Except for the few surviving commons, the
high roads, the lands of the National Trust, a certain number of parks, and
the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of England is 'owned'
by a few thousand families. These people are just about as useful as
so many
tapeworms. It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling
houses,
and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much land as
he can
actually farm. But the ground-landlord in a town area has no function
and no
excuse for existence. He is merely a person who has found out a way of
milking the public while giving nothing in return. He causes rents to be
higher, he makes town planning more difficult, and he excludes
children from
green spaces: that is literally all that he does, except to draw his
income.
The removal of the railings in the squares was a first step against him. It
was a very small step, and yet an appreciable one, as the present move to
restore the railings shows. For three years or so the squares lay open, and
their sacred turf was trodden by the feet of working-class children, a
sight
to make dividend-drawers gnash their false teeth. It that is theft, all I
can say is, so much the better for theft."
- George Orwell

B.Liar was wrong. He might have been right about the enclosure acts but
today (and indeed when B.Liar was writing) most landowners acquired
their property legally. I am however prepared to admit one small
exception. You lay claim to 2 properties which no doubt you stole from
their rightful owners.

--
Roger Chapman

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:03:59 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
. ..

The real point is that an individual sells his skills and labour
either to an employer or to his own business.
This is no different to any other buying and selling of services and
products.

You are so naive it is beyond belief.

** snip Mattness **

In a one industry, virtually one
company town, you can't just flit from
one company to another. I suppose you
are going to say, then go to Canada. Duh!!

If one is in a position where there is
too much competition between
suppliers then one looks for alternative markets.
These may be geographical or with different
products or services.

So you are saying go off to Canada.

If a group of employees, who create
the wealth, see massive profits and they
see only poor wages, they have the right
to collectively say, we want some
of the action mate reflected in our wage packets.

This is a very narrow and old fashioned view.

Those people don't make the wealth? Well who does Matt? To Matt creating
wealth is old fashioned.

** snip confused Mattness **

If said employees wish to live
in a bygone era and talk about
collectively wanting some of the
action (when in point of fact they
are getting it) then they can do so.

But they are not getting enough of the action so say eh sunny boy no
rippoffness here or we do something about it. A very modern view.

However, they shouldn't be
surprised if the employer then chooses
to shop elsewhere for his labour.

He can, but may find he can't get it to make his vast profits. Or that
relocating will super expensive and too risky. The people are making the
wealth so best let them have some of it as well.

The more sensible approach
would be to come to terms with
reality and provide the employer
with a constructive and compelling
set of reasons why he would wish
to pay more.

Yep. Like saying, we have seen the bottom line and we make all the wealth
and want some of it.

"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message
k...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

The real reason that building land
is so expensive

Roger, you are wrong as usual. Rogerness
is getting the better of you. This is what
Orwell said of the parasites, er sorry tapeworms:

Dribble you are a clueless ****wit.

More Rogerness. Roger, I didn't write it, George Orwell did. He is famous,
you probably don't know that.

"If giving the land of England back to
the people of England is theft, I am
quite happy to call it theft. In his zeal to
defend private property, my
correspondent does not stop to consider
how the so-called owners of the land
got hold of it. They simply seized it by
force, afterwards hiring lawyers to
provide them with title-deeds. In the
case of the enclosure of the common
lands, which was going on from about
1600 to 1850, the landgrabbers did not
even have the excuse of being foreign
conquerors; they were quite frankly
taking the heritage of their own countrymen,
upon no sort of pretext except that they
had the power to do so. Except for the
few surviving commons, the high roads,
the lands of the National Trust, a certain
number of parks, and the sea shore below
high-tide mark, every square inch of England
is 'owned' by a few thousand families. These
people are just about as useful as so many
tapeworms. It is desirable that people should
own their own dwelling houses, and it is
probably desirable that a farmer should own
as much land as he can actually farm. But
the ground-landlord in a town area has no function
and no excuse for existence. He is merely
a person who has found out a way of
milking the public while giving nothing in
return. He causes rents to be higher, he
makes town planning more difficult, and he excludes
children from green spaces: that is literally all
that he does, except to draw his income.
The removal of the railings in the squares
was a first step against him. It was a very
small step, and yet an appreciable one, as
the present move to restore the railings shows.
For three years or so the squares lay open, and
their sacred turf was trodden by the feet of
working-class children, a sight to make
dividend-drawers gnash their false teeth.
It that is theft, all I can say is, so much the
better for theft."
- George Orwell

B.Liar was wrong.

Roger, George Orwell wrote it. It says up there. A few lines up.

He might have been right about the
enclosure acts

Oh he was.

but today (and indeed when B.Liar
was writing) most landowners acquired
their property legally.

Rogerness again. Orwell says up there. "They simply seized it by force,
afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with title-deeds."

I am however prepared to admit one small
exception. You lay claim to 2 properties
which no doubt you stole from
their rightful owners.

No I bought them. I did not "seized them by force, afterwards hiring lawyers
to provide them with title-deeds".

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Millions of people have left these shores for better opportunities
abroad. Countries which are far more open and don't have a layer of
parasites creaming off.

Since you feel so strongly about it, why haven't you joined them?

These people who have left are people we could do with keeping.

And sadly some who have stayed aren't worth the air they breathe. Are your
ears burning?

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Clearly that is a complete and utter nonsense and is why unions are a
temporal thing and an aberration which will, thank goodness, go away
within the next generation.

Union membership is on the increase.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Millions of people have left these shores for better opportunities
abroad. Countries which are far more open and don't have a layer of
parasites creaming off.

Since you feel

** snip an effing lunatic **

sad but true.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Snip

Dribble you are a clueless ****wit.

More Rogerness. Roger, I didn't write it, George Orwell did. He is
famous,
you probably don't know that.

And when he finally saw the light he wrote Animal Farm.

snip

Except for the
few surviving commons, the high roads,
the lands of the National Trust, a certain
number of parks, and the sea shore below
high-tide mark, every square inch of England
is 'owned' by a few thousand families.

snip

B.Liar was wrong.

Roger, George Orwell wrote it. It says up there. A few lines up.

So you don't know who George Orwell was. No surprise there.

He might have been right about the
enclosure acts

Oh he was.

but today (and indeed when B.Liar
was writing) most landowners acquired
their property legally.

I snipped most of what he wrote but I left the rubbish in just to remind
you that while much of what he wrote was historical in context that
particular section was aimed at his contemporaries.

Rogerness again. Orwell says up there. "They simply seized it by force,
afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with title-deeds."

Probably referring to the Normans. The enclosure acts were, as the name
suggests, Acts of Parliament. No force required, just a nod and a wink
to friends in high places.

I am however prepared to admit one small
exception. You lay claim to 2 properties
which no doubt you stole from
their rightful owners.

No I bought them. I did not "seized them by force, afterwards hiring
lawyers
to provide them with title-deeds".

You are just as much a landowner as those whom Orwell castigated.
Property is theft to some people even today.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The wealth is created by a combination of risk taking and investment
by the employer added to by the work done by the employees (whatever
that might be). The employer pays what he feels is appropriate for
the work delivered, which in turn is what his customers are willing to
pay him.

Drivel has suggested that you are naive. That's possibly naive of him. In this
matter those that are not part of the solution - which is employers and
employees getting industry working safely and economically on even footing -
then you are part of the problem. You (and others of your view) have caused
untold damage to industry and misery (and injury & death) to workers. You are
parasites on society that no decent society would tolerate.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message
k...
The message ews.net

from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Snip

Dribble you are a clueless ****wit.

More Rogerness. Roger, I didn't write it,
George Orwell did. He is famous,
you probably don't know that.

And when he finally saw the light
he wrote Animal Farm.

He wrote that at the same time.

Except for the
few surviving commons, the high roads,
the lands of the National Trust, a certain
number of parks, and the sea shore below
high-tide mark, every square inch of England
is 'owned' by a few thousand families.

snip

B.Liar was wrong.

Roger, George Orwell wrote it.
It says up there. A few lines up.

So you don't know who George Orwell
was. No surprise there.

Rogerness again. Roger, you think George Orwell told lies. You told us.

He might have been right about the
enclosure acts

Oh he was.

but today (and indeed when B.Liar
was writing) most landowners acquired
their property legally.

I snipped most of what he wrote but

Roger, you should read and understand Mr Orwell. Read it all again 20 times
please.

Rogerness again. Orwell says up there.
"They simply seized it by force,
afterwards hiring lawyers to provide
them with title-deeds."

Probably referring to the Normans.

More Rogerness. Appalling. Roger he gave the dates. Please read again 20
times.

The enclosure acts were, as the name
suggests, Acts of Parliament. No
force required, just a nod and a wink
to friends in high places.

Yes Roger, appalling we all know. As George says, theft is theft.

I am however prepared to admit one small
exception. You lay claim to 2 properties
which no doubt you stole from
their rightful owners.

No I bought them. I did not "seized them
by force, afterwards hiring
lawyers to provide them with title-deeds".

You are just as much a landowner as
those whom Orwell castigated.
Property is theft to some people even today.

NO Roger. I take no rent for land.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You are just as much a landowner as
those whom Orwell castigated.
Property is theft to some people even today.

NO Roger. I take no rent for land.

Since you live in a one bedroom council flat, not surprising.

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You are just as much a landowner as
those whom Orwell castigated.
Property is theft to some people even today.

NO Roger. I take no rent for land.

Since

** snip deluded senility **

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message
and
the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of England is 'owned'
by a few thousand families. These people are just about as useful as so many
tapeworms.

I think he was slightly incorrect there (I'm straying into land law
here, something I know bog all about). My understanding is that the
foreshore (high water to low water is owned by the Crown, Duchy of
Cornwall or Duchy of Lancaster. The sea bed, from low water to the
12-mile territorial limit is Crown property. This is not to be confused
with State property, it is the personal property of the Queen/Royal
family, just as Sandringham is.

"Aidan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Roger" wrote
Rogerness in message

and the sea shore below high-tide mark, every
square inch of England is 'owned' by a few
thousand families. These people are just about
as useful as so many tapeworms.

I think he was slightly incorrect there (I'm straying into land law
here, something I know bog all about). My understanding is that the
foreshore (high water to low water is owned by the Crown, Duchy of
Cornwall or Duchy of Lancaster. The sea bed, from low water to the
12-mile territorial limit is Crown property. This is not to be confused
with State property, it is the personal property of the Queen/Royal
family, just as Sandringham is.

The Crown lands are owned by the state. AIUI, the Queen can take the
proceeds of that "land". If so, then Orwell is correct. We, the state, own
the land below the high tide mark, but it is given to one family. Sounds
like a banana republic; ridiculous.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Crown lands are owned by the state. AIUI, the Queen can take the
proceeds of that "land". If so, then Orwell is correct. We, the state, own
the land below the high tide mark, but it is given to one family.

I think the Crown lands belong to the Queen, not the state. It dates
from the time when the Monarch was the state. I'm really not sure & I'm
not getting into a row about it.

"Aidan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Crown lands are owned by the state. AIUI, the Queen can take the
proceeds of that "land". If so, then Orwell is correct. We, the state,
own
the land below the high tide mark, but it is given to one family.

I think the Crown lands belong to the Queen, not the state. It dates
from the time when the Monarch was the state. I'm really not sure & I'm
not getting into a row about it.

It is not a row it is clarification.

Hansard:
Crown Estate

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister who owns the Crown Estate.
[2242]

The Prime Minister: The Crown Estate is held in right of the Crown, but its
income forms the major part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown that
have been surrendered to the Exchequer in return for the civil list by each
monarch since 1760. The Crown Estate is managed by Commissioners under the
Crown Estate Act 1961. Copies of the Commissioners' annual reports are
available in the Library of the House.

Who Owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate is the property of the reigning Sovereign of the United
Kingdom (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II), but it is not her private
property. It is inherited with her title. She cannot sell it; neither does
she receive any money from it.

Between 1066 (the Norman Conquest) and 1760, the land was the property of
the Sovereign and he or she was able to do whatever they wanted it with it -
buy, sell, give it away - but in 1760 a deal was struck with Parliament
which stated that, although the property would remain the Sovereign's in
name only, all the net revenue from the estates would be given to Parliament
each year. In return the Sovereign gets the Civil List.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/18_housing_news_winter-spring_2004.pdf

So, the Queen owns it, sort of, but the revenue goes to the exchequer, in
return for the civil list which we pay them. In other words, she get a
guaranteed income of us, which is insulated from the market forces of the
Crown Estate. Any loss and we take it, not her.

The Crown Estate is ridiculous. It should be in the hands of the state, and
stop the confusion. Then it can be sold off to many, many buyers. But the
beaches remain in the hands of the state.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:29:58 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:20:48 +0000, tarquinlinbin
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:41:09 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:33:10 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , gastec
writes

Does anyone have views about the GMB union..
good or bad union?

Is that owt like a yorkshire fitting ?


Sort of. Both are unnecessary in the 21st century.
That very much depends on where your sitting. Many people in clerical
jobs or the various strata of management and the hallowed halls of
academia think that all that masty union stuff is to do with those low
grade manual workers and as people further up the economic and
intellectual chain, such things dont apply to them and are not to be
considered. Fact is that they need to consider them even more because
when the axe is wielded, it is often the mid sections that are cut
out!. Those on the front line i.e acutal production operatives ,are
still needed to keep companies going and to produce.


This is all a very limited view.

OK take my example. A major global utility company. It used to have
big bright offices in every major town and city. All rammed full of
staff from clerical through various admin,managerial levels right to
the top of the tree. There was chrome, plate glass,hired exoric
plants,welfare facilities etc in abundance. They were all sitting
pretty in there. Meanwhile the mobile workforce were all but excluded
from this abundance of luxury and were kept out of office to work.
Obvoiusly they needed to keep working so that this lot could ride on
their backs.

Over the years it has all been axed. Offices are almost portacabins
and there are fewer of them. There is one or two major admin centres
which control all mobile workforce via field based technology. Whole
offices have been closed,swathes of management cut fortunes saved. One
thing they never touched was the front line workforce. All they did
was replace all the admin staff and management with a laptop issued to
each field engineer. Result? field engineers job is secure and still
being quite well paid-clerical and managerial are all redundant/paid
off. I always say, they never cut at the front line.



Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

http://www.no2id.org/

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:29:58 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

The real point is that an individual sells his skills and labour
either to an employer or to his own business.
This is no different to any other buying and selling of services and
products.

If one examines what happens in all other instances with buying and
selling of products and services, things have to match. The supplier
convinces the purchaser that they have what the purchaser wants to
buy. That includes the entire deliverable comprising product, service
and price.

It is the natural way of business since time immemorial.

Now consider the entry of a union into all of this. It is patent
nonsense. In effect it is the equivalent of a set of shops joining
together, using an outside consultant and telling their customers that
they are going to fix prices. If the customer doesn't want to buy on
that basis, then none of them will sell to him.

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Nick, desperately trying to save *one* uk.d-i-y thread from a
Hall/Drivel ****ing competition.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

In article .com,
Aidan writes

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Crown lands are owned by the state. AIUI, the Queen can take the
proceeds of that "land". If so, then Orwell is correct. We, the state, own
the land below the high tide mark, but it is given to one family.

I think the Crown lands belong to the Queen, not the state. It dates
from the time when the Monarch was the state. I'm really not sure & I'm
not getting into a row about it.

No, you're wrong the Crown estate is in name only, the Royals receive no
income from the crown estates, the only bit of land that belongs to the
Crown is the foreshore and that is just an administrative thing and does
give it some protection.

--
David

"Nick Atty" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:29:58 +0000, Andy Hall aka Matt
wrote:

The real point is that an individual sells his skills and labour
either to an employer or to his own business.
This is no different to any other buying and selling of services and
products.

If one examines what happens in all other instances with buying and
selling of products and services, things have to match. The supplier
convinces the purchaser that they have what the purchaser wants to
buy. That includes the entire deliverable comprising product, service
and price.

It is the natural way of business since time immemorial.

Now consider the entry of a union into all of this. It is patent
nonsense. In effect it is the equivalent of a set of shops joining
together, using an outside consultant and telling their customers that
they are going to fix prices. If the customer doesn't want to buy on
that basis, then none of them will sell to him.

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Nick, desperately trying to save *one* uk.d-i-y thread from a
Hall/Drivel ****ing competition.

I know what your mean. Matt and his uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association can ruin
anything.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Snip

Dribble you are a clueless ****wit.

More Rogerness. Roger, I didn't write it,
George Orwell did. He is famous,
you probably don't know that.

And when he finally saw the light
he wrote Animal Farm.

He wrote that at the same time.

With his right hand while penning the item you quoted with his left?
Inherently unlikely. Animal Farm was published in 1945. What was the
date of your quote? It has the ring of a young and naive writer.

Except for the
few surviving commons, the high roads,
the lands of the National Trust, a certain
number of parks, and the sea shore below
high-tide mark, every square inch of England
is 'owned' by a few thousand families.

snip

B.Liar was wrong.

Roger, George Orwell wrote it.
It says up there. A few lines up.

So you don't know who George Orwell
was. No surprise there.

Rogerness again. Roger, you think George Orwell told lies. You told us.

The quote above was certainly untrue in the 1930s which is when I assume
he wrote it. It would probably have been untrue if he had been writing
about the situation 100 or more years earlier.

BTW George Orwell was just a pen name. His real name was Eric Arthur
Blair, hence the B. Liar tag.

He might have been right about the
enclosure acts

Oh he was.

but today (and indeed when B.Liar
was writing) most landowners acquired
their property legally.

I snipped most of what he wrote but

Roger, you should read and understand Mr Orwell. Read it all again 20
times
please.

Rogerness again. Orwell says up there.
"They simply seized it by force,
afterwards hiring lawyers to provide
them with title-deeds."

Probably referring to the Normans.

More Rogerness. Appalling. Roger he gave the dates. Please read again 20
times.

Not of any seizures. He quoted dates for the Enclosure Acts which were
by definition legal.

The enclosure acts were, as the name
suggests, Acts of Parliament. No
force required, just a nod and a wink
to friends in high places.

Yes Roger, appalling we all know. As George says, theft is theft.

All entirely legal.

I am however prepared to admit one small
exception. You lay claim to 2 properties
which no doubt you stole from
their rightful owners.

No I bought them. I did not "seized them
by force, afterwards hiring
lawyers to provide them with title-deeds".

You are just as much a landowner as
those whom Orwell castigated.
Property is theft to some people even today.

NO Roger. I take no rent for land.

Property *is* theft to most communists.

And by occupying 2 properties you are doing your bit to push up property
prices unnecessarily.

--
Roger Chapman

Doctor Drivel wrote:



Matt you are so naive it is beyond belief. In a one industry, virtually
one company town, you can't just flit from one company to another.

That was certainly true for most of history.

The biggest single factor in the improvement of working conditions and
industrial relations has been affordable private motor transport.

"Roger" wrote more appalling Rogerness in
message k...
The message ews.net

Dribble you are a clueless ****wit.

More Rogerness. Roger, I didn't write it,
George Orwell did. He is famous,
you probably don't know that.

And when he finally saw the light
he wrote Animal Farm.

He wrote that at the same time.

With his right hand while penning the item you quoted with his left?
Inherently unlikely. Animal Farm was published in 1945. What was the
date of your quote?

Around the same time. He was writing Animal Farm at the time.

It has the ring of a young and naive writer.

More Rogerness. Apppalling.

Except for the
few surviving commons, the high roads,
the lands of the National Trust, a certain
number of parks, and the sea shore below
high-tide mark, every square inch of England
is 'owned' by a few thousand families.

snip

B.Liar was wrong.

Roger, George Orwell wrote it.
It says up there. A few lines up.

So you don't know who George Orwell
was. No surprise there.

Rogerness again. Roger, you think
George Orwell told lies. You told us.

The quote above was certainly untrue
in the 1930s which is when I assume
he wrote it.

Nope. He was writing Animal Farm at the time, 1944. Roger, you see, you
don't know much at all.

He might have been right about the
enclosure acts

Oh he was.

but today (and indeed when B.Liar
was writing) most landowners acquired
their property legally.

I snipped most of what he wrote but

Roger, you should read and
understand Mr Orwell. Read it all again 20
times please.

Rogerness again. Orwell says up there.
"They simply seized it by force,
afterwards hiring lawyers to provide
them with title-deeds."

Probably referring to the Normans.

More Rogerness. Appalling. Roger
he gave the dates. Please read again 20
times.

Not of any seizures.

He did.

The enclosure acts were, as the name
suggests, Acts of Parliament. No
force required, just a nod and a wink
to friends in high places.

Yes Roger, appalling we all know.
As George says, theft is theft.

All entirely legal.

Theft is theft Roger.

I am however prepared to admit one small
exception. You lay claim to 2 properties
which no doubt you stole from
their rightful owners.

No I bought them. I did not "seized them
by force, afterwards hiring
lawyers to provide them with title-deeds".

You are just as much a landowner as
those whom Orwell castigated.
Property is theft to some people even today.

NO Roger. I take no rent for land.

Property *is* theft to most communists.

More appalling Rogerness. It probably is theft to them, but I am no Commie
Roger. Georgism describes property as the bricks on the land. It does not
view land as "property". It advocates that the free market will cater for
housing needs. Henry George was an American economist.

And by occupying 2 properties you are
doing your bit to push up property
prices unnecessarily.

Nope. Not at all. Restricting people to build on land and allowing the
land to be in the hands of a few people pushes up property prices. Now you
know Roger. Now you know.

In article ,
Nick Atty wrote:
Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Mine, BECTU, includes public liability insurance for each member, which if
bought individually would cost more than the annual subscription.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:42:38 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

If one is in a position where there is
too much competition between
suppliers then one looks for alternative markets.
These may be geographical or with different
products or services.

So you are saying go off to Canada.

No.

I am saying

"If one is in a position where there is
too much competition between
suppliers then one looks for alternative markets.
These may be geographical or with different
products or services."




If said employees wish to live
in a bygone era and talk about
collectively wanting some of the
action (when in point of fact they
are getting it) then they can do so.

But they are not getting enough of the action so say eh sunny boy no
rippoffness here or we do something about it. A very modern view.

It would have been in the 60s and 70s.

Not any longer.


However, they shouldn't be
surprised if the employer then chooses
to shop elsewhere for his labour.

He can, but may find he can't get it to make his vast profits. Or that
relocating will super expensive and too risky. The people are making the
wealth so best let them have some of it as well.

What on earth are you talking about comrade?

The reality is that it is the combination of the investment and risk
by the employer and the input of labour by the employees.

The employees achieve an objective (be it a defined goal or number of
hours worked) and they get paid for it.

If you take a look at the accounts of any profitable company you will
see that a substantial chunk goes on wages and salaries so there is a
sharing of the income from the customer.



The more sensible approach
would be to come to terms with
reality and provide the employer
with a constructive and compelling
set of reasons why he would wish
to pay more.

Yep. Like saying, we have seen the bottom line and we make all the wealth
and want some of it.

Oh puhleez......


--

..andy

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:14:18 +0000, tarquinlinbin
wrote:



OK take my example. A major global utility company. It used to have
big bright offices in every major town and city. All rammed full of
staff from clerical through various admin,managerial levels right to
the top of the tree. There was chrome, plate glass,hired exoric
plants,welfare facilities etc in abundance. They were all sitting
pretty in there. Meanwhile the mobile workforce were all but excluded
from this abundance of luxury and were kept out of office to work.
Obvoiusly they needed to keep working so that this lot could ride on
their backs.

Over the years it has all been axed. Offices are almost portacabins
and there are fewer of them. There is one or two major admin centres
which control all mobile workforce via field based technology. Whole
offices have been closed,swathes of management cut fortunes saved. One
thing they never touched was the front line workforce. All they did
was replace all the admin staff and management with a laptop issued to
each field engineer. Result? field engineers job is secure and still
being quite well paid-clerical and managerial are all redundant/paid
off. I always say, they never cut at the front line.


I think that you described my point.

The adminstrative overhead was not contributing to the bottom line and
is esily replaced or relocated. At least half of the civil service
could be sacked and employed gainfully if this principle were
followed.

Consider the field engineer - i.e. somebody who goes somewhere and
fixes things in the broadest sense (regardless of industry). On the
positive side, he is able to be more efficient with a laptop because
he probably has spares ordering, billing, optimised visiting and so on
as a result - i.e. less wasted time.
On the negative side, in many industries, it has become cheaper to
replace than to fix things - e.g. TV field repair to component level
is a thing of the past.

THe point is that the individual should be constantly evaluating his
marketability. He should make sure that the path he is following is
going to remain tenable for as long as he needs or wants it to be. If
that is too short term, then he needs to be considering alternatives,
be they acquiring new skills to overlay what he has or a complete
career change. Differentiation from others in a chosen field is
vital as well - i.e. why does an employer/customer choose me rather
than the next person.

What I am very sure about is that it is not long term viable to bury
one's head in the sand or to rely on others, be they a union or
anything similar to prop up an untenable situation from the
perspective of the employer. It won't last, and the drop can be a
big shock...



--

..andy

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:58:35 +0000, Nick Atty
wrote:



Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:42:38 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

If one is in a position where there is
too much competition between
suppliers then one looks for alternative markets.
These may be geographical or with different
products or services.

So you are saying go off to Canada.

No.

I am saying

"If one is in a position where there is
too much competition between
suppliers then one looks for alternative markets.
These may be geographical or with different
products or services."

Matt, so you are saying go off to Canada.

If said employees wish to live
in a bygone era and talk about
collectively wanting some of the
action (when in point of fact they
are getting it) then they can do so.

But they are not getting enough of
the action so say eh sunny boy no
rippoffness here or we do something
about it. A very modern view.

It would have been in the 60s and 70s.

Not any longer.

However, they shouldn't be
surprised if the employer then chooses
to shop elsewhere for his labour.

He can, but may find he can't get it to make his vast profits. Or that
relocating will be super expensive and too risky.
The people are making the wealth so best let
them have some of it as well.

What on earth are you talking about comrade?

Matt, please focus.

The reality is that it is the combination of the investment and risk
by the employer and the input of labour by the employees.

And the labour want a piece of the action of which they created, which they
should be entitled to. Otherwise they act as one to get the message across.
You are so naive you think the world is perfect. There are some greedy and
callous managers.

The employees achieve an objective
(be it a defined goal or number of
hours worked) and they get paid for it.

...and they see the yearly profits and say, eh mate, we want some of that, we
made it.

If you take a look at the accounts of any profitable company you will
see that a substantial chunk goes on wages and salaries so there is a
sharing of the income from the customer.

If you look at the accounts of some companies they could afford to give the
employees £2K each as a bonus, and it would only scratch the profits. But
they don't.

The more sensible approach
would be to come to terms with
reality and provide the employer
with a constructive and compelling
set of reasons why he would wish
to pay more.

Yep. Like saying, we have seen the
bottom line and we make all the wealth
and want some of it.

Oh puhleez......

Matt, you mean they should be ripped off, after creating all the wealth? I
know you are not very bright, but you can't be that dumb.

Look up the companies that work to Quaker ethics: Honeywell, IBM, Cadburys,
Clarke's Shoes, Huntley and Palmer, etc.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:58:35 +0000, Nick Atty
wrote:

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Matt, your naivety is beyond belief.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Now we get a break every 6 hours regardless. And a minimum overnight break
of 11 hours. And a maximum 48 hour week.


and our US/Chinese replacements are due in next week!

Regards
Capitol