Jump to content

Charlies letters to be published?


Guest Peter James

Recommended Posts

Personally I believe that all letters written in confidence, regardless of who writes them, should remain in confidence for at least the lifetime of the writer unless the writer specifically agrees to them being released to the parliament or the courts and any breach would be a breach of the writers human rights.

 

How else can anyone, regardless of status, lodge their concerns without the risk of them being commandeered by the media 'in the public interest' which is a popular media euphemism for attacking anyone they disagree with whilst simultaneously using it as an excuse to make money, none of which will ever benefit anyone except the media giants themselves.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James

Well if he has nothing to hide why would he not want us to know what is in them? If, however, he is using the royal prerogative to put pressure on our elected representatives.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect both to you and to your views Peter, knowing how you never miss any opportunity to have another dig at the Royal Family somehow makes me deeply suspicious that your motives for this thread have more to do with royal bashing than with access to information that I venture to respectfully suggest has no real interest to you other than as an anti royalist?

 

I, on the other hand have a great deal of respect for the principle members of our Royal Family and so as you might expect I find it easier than you to understand and accept Prince Charles's point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If private correspondence with Ministers of State (and with all politicians, and why stop at just Prince Charles letters?) is to be seen as within the sphere of public interest, and therefore accessible to Freedom of Information enquiries, is it fair to apply this retrospectively, if they were written believing they were private?

 

Does this mean that absolutely nothing anyone does is private any more, if someone wants to use the Freedom of Information argument to stick their nose in, when they might have improper motives for doing so?

 

I wrote to my MP a while ago to ask for his influence and/or access, to help get something done. Should that letter be subject to the same rules of disclosure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
StuartO - 2015-03-27 8:00 AM

 

If private correspondence with Ministers of State (and with all politicians, and why stop at just Prince Charles letters?) is to be seen as within the sphere of public interest, and therefore accessible to Freedom of Information enquiries, is it fair to apply this retrospectively, if they were written believing they were private?

 

Does this mean that absolutely nothing anyone does is private any more, if someone wants to use the Freedom of Information argument to stick their nose in, when they might have improper motives for doing so?

 

I wrote to my MP a while ago to ask for his influence and/or access, to help get something done. Should that letter be subject to the same rules of disclosure?

 

There's a difference between "Private" correspondence as in "do you fancy a pint?".......and "Private" correspondence that means your trying to affect the outcome of something that will effect Joe public ;-)............I for one don't trust our Lords and masters any further than I can spit :-| ............

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that had HRH, or anyone else for that matter, known that the letters they believed to be confidential might become available in the public domain he might possibly have worded them differently than he would believing them to be secure for the foreseeable future?

 

It is one thing to change the law but quite another to make it retrospective and that does smack of anti royalism in the judiciary?

 

Whatever you think about HRH Prince Charles he does have the best interests of the United Kingdom very much at heart and whilst some might not agree with his principles and ideas there is no doubt that he has done and continues to do much good for the country and perhaps if we had a few more outspoken people in power and a few less wishy washy politically correct wusses we might just be a better country for it?

 

Whether he can or would try to change government policy I have no idea but he is as entitled as anyone else to write to any government official expressing his views in confidence unless he chooses to go public which is unlikely given the Royal Families policy of non involvement in political issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps if we had a few more outspoken people in power and a few less wishy washy politically correct wusses we might just be a better country for it?

 

Rich youve hit the nail spot on mate with just that small sentence , and that is why people like Charles , Farage , Clarkson etc . ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Saying one thing in public whilst pulling strings behind close doors is how our lords & masters work *-) ............

 

How else do people like Cyril Smith and Saville, amongst others get away with their crimes? :-| .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James

There appears to be some confusion here

 

The Freedom of Information Act, like the Employment Protection Act, does not apply to the Royal family. How else could our elected representatives have persuaded the unelected Queen to allow it?

What they don't appear to have forseen is that Charlie sent the letters to someone who is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

A panel of judges upheld this.

Dominic Grieve tried to veto the panel of judges decision, which he had no authority to do.

 

Its Cameron who is trying to change the legislation retrospectively. The Queen suits him just fine, because she gives the Prime Minister power under the Royal Prerogative to appoint judges, dish out honours, even declare war, without consulting Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
Tracker - 2015-03-27 10:05 AM

 

The point is that had HRH, or anyone else for that matter, known that the letters they believed to be confidential might become available in the public domain he might possibly have worded them differently than he would believing them to be secure for the foreseeable future?

 

It is one thing to change the law but quite another to make it retrospective and that does smack of anti royalism in the judiciary?

 

Whatever you think about HRH Prince Charles he does have the best interests of the United Kingdom very much at heart and whilst some might not agree with his principles and ideas there is no doubt that he has done and continues to do much good for the country and perhaps if we had a few more outspoken people in power and a few less wishy washy politically correct wusses we might just be a better country for it?

 

Whether he can or would try to change government policy I have no idea but he is as entitled as anyone else to write to any government official expressing his views in confidence unless he chooses to go public which is unlikely given the Royal Families policy of non involvement in political issues.

 

See previous post --- its them who are trying to change the law and make it retrospective !!!!!

And if what you say is true, why have they spent the last ten years, at great public expense, trying to stop us finding out whats in them???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter James - 2015-03-27 8:28 PM

 

Tracker - 2015-03-27 10:05 AM

 

The point is that had HRH, or anyone else for that matter, known that the letters they believed to be confidential might become available in the public domain he might possibly have worded them differently than he would believing them to be secure for the foreseeable future?

 

It is one thing to change the law but quite another to make it retrospective and that does smack of anti royalism in the judiciary?

 

Whatever you think about HRH Prince Charles he does have the best interests of the United Kingdom very much at heart and whilst some might not agree with his principles and ideas there is no doubt that he has done and continues to do much good for the country and perhaps if we had a few more outspoken people in power and a few less wishy washy politically correct wusses we might just be a better country for it?

 

Whether he can or would try to change government policy I have no idea but he is as entitled as anyone else to write to any government official expressing his views in confidence unless he chooses to go public which is unlikely given the Royal Families policy of non involvement in political issues.

 

See previous post --- its them who are trying to change the law and make it retrospective !!!!!

And if what you say is true, why have they spent the last ten years, at great public expense, trying to stop us finding out whats in them???

 

Got to say most folk find Charles an irrelevance these days , it's the younger ones that are news worthy now . I don't mind the royals and certainly the younger ones are a breath of fresh air

Had it been William or Harry expressing a view then public interest may have been more , as for Charles expressing a view I really don't think anyone gives a sh&t do they ?

Only the Beeb or anti royals will give a fudge ... Move on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Peter James - 2015-03-27 8:20 PM

 

Its Cameron who is trying to change the legislation retrospectively. The Queen suits him just fine, because she gives the Prime Minister power under the Royal Prerogative to appoint judges, dish out honours, even declare war, without consulting Parliament.

 

Is that true Peter?...............But wouldn't a president not give him/her self the same powers?..........

 

I fear the day when King/President Salmond rules the English 8-)................

 

We'll all be force fed haggis and deep fried Mars bars for breakfast.........as early mortality would do wonders for the national deficit :D................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
antony1969 - 2015-03-27 8:40 PM

Got to say most folk find Charles an irrelevance these days , it's the younger ones that are news worthy now . I don't mind the royals and certainly the younger ones are a breath of fresh air

Had it been William or Harry expressing a view then public interest may have been more , as for Charles expressing a view I really don't think anyone gives a sh&t do they ?

Only the Beeb or anti royals will give a fudge ... Move on

 

They have so much power (and cost so much money) you cannot afford to ignore them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
pelmetman - 2015-03-27 9:37 PM

 

Peter James - 2015-03-27 8:20 PM

 

Its Cameron who is trying to change the legislation retrospectively. The Queen suits him just fine, because she gives the Prime Minister power under the Royal Prerogative to appoint judges, dish out honours, even declare war, without consulting Parliament.

 

Is that true Peter?...............But wouldn't a president not give him/her self the same powers?..........

 

I fear the day when King/President Salmond rules the English 8-)................

 

We'll all be force fed haggis and deep fried Mars bars for breakfast.........as early mortality would do wonders for the national deficit :D................

 

A President may even be worse. People might not make the best choice, but its their choice.. And in 5 years time they would get to choose another. They would not be forced to have him, plus all his hangers on, plus all his descendants, plus all his descendants hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore.. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...