Her Royal Secretness

[Russ]

Just perfect... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-2179148.html

[Gary L]

Does that mean if one of the royal family were to be arrested on suspicion of being a pedo. it would be kept a secret from us?

Originally Posted by Russ

Just perfect... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-2179148.html

can't say i have a problem with this ,private correspondence should remain private ,even if it is between a future king and a minister

Originally Posted by Gary L

Does that mean if one of the royal family were to be arrested on suspicion of being a pedo. it would be kept a secret from us?

Yes , it also means they can play death race 2000 in the palace grounds with the servants

[spreadsheet]

The French had the right idea of how to deal with them

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes

Streuth.
I wonder why Charlie was pushing for this to go through?

it also means they can play death race 2000 in the palace grounds with the servants

Haven't got a problem with that.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

No coincidence then that Prince Charles' Duchy Estate Defends Tax Breaks?

Secrecy breeds contempt and corruption.

As i read it that is just a argument over the Duchy of Cornwall's tax status,Charles takes his wages from it and pays tax on those wages even though he doesn't have to ,capital gains have to be reinvested anyway so they are not trousered by the Prince .Essentially all that is happening is that Margaret Hodge is investigating if there is an unfair advantage due to the tax status of the Duchy ,Charles it would seem just wants to keep the status quo

[Osem]

Oh yes Margaret Hodge:

http://order-order.com/2012/11/21/ma...temcor-trusts/

Interesting reading.

As is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hodge

She has also been accused of lacking understanding of how the taxation system operates, both the existing statute and the process involved for amending it.[41] Hodge continued to demonstrate her lack of understanding of UK tax law by demanding HMRC launch an "absolutely thorough investigation to make sure that UK taxpayers receive the maximum to which they are entitled" when the Vodafone sale of Verizon Wireless was announced in September 2013.[42][43] This was despite the fact that no UK companies were involved in the transaction, and even if there had been then no UK corporation tax would have been payable due to the 'substantial shareholdings exemption'. This was a deliberately designed exemption that Hodge herself voted in favour of in the Finance Act 2002, introduced by the Labour government of the time.

Originally Posted by Osem

Oh yes Margaret Hodge:

http://order-order.com/2012/11/21/ma...temcor-trusts/

Interesting reading.

As is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hodge

Indeed ,if there is an unfair advantage in favour of the Duchy then i'm sure those companies affected would have kicked up a stink long before now and had the law changed .
Do we know why Hodge has decided to make an issue of this ??

[nomadking]

The tax issue is just avoiding being taxed TWICE on the same income. First time around on the Duchy as a business and then on him personally, when the profits are transferred to him.

Nice to see the Governments does respect some rights. As long as you're rich of course.

Today's monarchy has been far more transparent than at any time in the past and far more accessible

IF the media had treated Charles with a bit more respect and indeed had treated Princess Diana with a lot more respect then perhaps this avenue would not have been sought by the government.The way in which they had to plead that William and Harry should have their privacy respected during their teen years and yet as soon as they reached almost adulthood they became fair game..and recently Charles being accused of 'meddling' when pursuing topics that interest him has probably led to this route being taken.
Either we respect our monarchy or we don't but you cannot expect them to continue to be transparent in their dealings if all they get is invasion of their privacy as a result.

It's not as if they can go to a press regulator to complain is it? That worked so well in the past.

The problem now will be that they will become more of a target for those of a green eyed persuasion.