Prince Charles Loses 10 year Battle...

#1
To Stop Letters to Ministers Being Released:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/26/prince-charles-loses-10ye_n_6945650.html?1427364034

Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. On the one hand, it will be very interesting to read what he was thinking at the time, but on the other, they were meant to be private. What right do we have to go about reading other peoples private letters?

We bang on about freedom of speech and how its part of living in a free world; well does that not come hand in hand with entitlement to privacy too?

Should I dig out all the letters I ever received from my wife and family and friends and destroy them in case one of you lot wants to read them? (Not that you will, they're only full of family stuff).

I'm not sure this will be a good thing.
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#2
If he's interfering in politics and public life then he should be subject to the FOI Act. If it's genuinely private correspondence about his private life then it should remain private.
 
#3
Learning point here.

If you want an answer to a question, verbally ask it.

If you're unhappy about a decision, verbally ask it.
 
#5
If he's interfering in politics and public life then he should be subject to the FOI Act. If it's genuinely private correspondence about his private life then it should remain private.
And if they were his private opinion on political matters?
 
#6
I'm mildly concerned that someone supposed well educated saw fit to say

"He announced: "That principle is that a decision of a judicial body should be final and binding and should not be capable of being overturned by a member of the executive."

The FOI Act has an explicit option for a Government Veto, in an Act passed by the Houses of Parliament, regardless of if that option was challenged in Parliament or not, the act was passed by both House of Parliament . Which is the job of the Executive. The Judiciary has just decided that that an Act of Parliament can be overwritten by themselves. That's not their job and not their place.
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#7
And if they were his private opinion on political matters?
Not private if the Queens 2ic is writing to politicians or public officials, that's interfering in the business of government or running the country. If he engages in conversation with someone not in government or not a public official but the topic is about government or public business then that is a private opinion raised in a private conversation.
 
#8
When you and I write to our MP or a minister to ask questions or say what we think (i.e. try to influence policy) there is a formal understanding in government that this is private*. I can't see why there should be an exception for one man because he might be the head of state one day, if mummy karks it before he does. Otherwise it makes a slight crock of the mantra that everyone is equal under the law (being the legally-enshrined right to a private life).

But, then, I might be of that view merely because I couldn't care less what he writes in personal correspondence since I am perfectly well aware that HRH is likely to have as much influence on policy as I am: zip. The parties have their agendas and world view, right or wrong, and no-one's going change that. Until it gets too many adverse headlines in the papers - which in some ways raises a mild hypocrisy on the part of the publication that has taken this to the top court in the land.

Tony Blair once said he had no reverse gear - and this may well have been the case but, once the press got their hooks into something they didn't like, he proved that he had a very tight turning circle like all the others in Westminster.

And the press is concerned that Big Ears might be influencing government policy...?




*as in not made public but possibly shared across relevant government departments.
 
Last edited:
#9
A good decision. No one voted for him. He shouldn't try to influence government policy and if he does it should be open for all to see.
 
#10
Not private if the Queens 2ic is writing to politicians or public officials, that's interfering in the business of government or running the country. If he engages in conversation with someone not in government or not a public official but the topic is about government or public business then that is a private opinion raised in a private conversation.
So I should only worry about my letters to my local MP being made public then?

Yeah I'm not convinced this will end well.
 
#11
I'm mildly concerned that someone supposed well educated saw fit to say

"He announced: "That principle is that a decision of a judicial body should be final and binding and should not be capable of being overturned by a member of the executive."

The FOI Act has an explicit option for a Government Veto, in an Act passed by the Houses of Parliament, regardless of if that option was challenged in Parliament or not, the act was passed by both House of Parliament . Which is the job of the Executive. The Judiciary has just decided that that an Act of Parliament can be overwritten by themselves. That's not their job and not their place.
Who said that? Can you link it?
 
#12
If he's interfering in politics and public life then he should be subject to the FOI Act. If it's genuinely private correspondence about his private life then it should remain private.
As previously pointed out the Monarch and the Heir has both, in comparison to Prime Ministers, hundreds of years of experience and no interest in short term election cycles.

Some twunt of a lentil munching f**kwit has, out of some perverse belief that his own short term interests are more important than the ability of someone with no real axe to grind and a long term view no-one in political office has demonstrated for the last 20 years to advise PMs in private, just cut that private advice out of the system, just for his benefit.
 
#14
It'll just be a load of dribble about green energy, poor farmers and sustainable forestry anyway.

All the letters will probably will have to be retrieved from the 'Ignore' achieve folder
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
To my mind, if letters are to be made public then the letter writer should be aware of that when they write the letter. To introduce the rule retrospectively is not at all fair. If I write a private letter then I expect it to be private and set down what I think accordingly, a document that I know will be made public is a different matter. What next, CCTV and sound recording in his bedroom to capture all the little things he says to Camilla? They are surely equally as private and have just as much chance of being on the subject of his views on politics.

No, this is a bad idea and almost certainly one made for political points scoring.
 
#19
To my mind, if letters are to be made public then the letter writer should be aware of that when they write the letter. To introduce the rule retrospectively is not at all fair. If I write a private letter then I expect it to be private and set down what I think accordingly, a document that I know will be made public is a different matter. What next, CCTV and sound recording in his bedroom to capture all the little things he says to Camilla? They are surely equally as private and have just as much chance of being on the subject of his views on politics.

No, this is a bad idea and almost certainly one made for political points scoring.
Remember "Squidgeygate...?"
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
And if they were his private opinion on political matters?
In his position? Should have kept said thoughts private.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top