Queen should lose lands
Sir, Stephen Cross has some serious points but it’s all spoiled by the clear underlying misplaced envy and faux concern for impecunious citizens (or subjects, I suppose).
A President would command a handsome payment too ...especially if we judge it by the spectacular demands of the current political establishment. There’d be no change there.
True, the awful English class system is alive and well.
In practical fact, the government we have is indistinguishable from a republic, but we have an hereditary “President” in the Monarch... a President without political power.
I am sympathetic to the general case of Mr Cross, but there are advantages to our system. Not least would be: who amongst the often self serving hypocritical self agrandising political establishment would you vote as President? Personally, if she were to stand, I would vote for Mrs Queen. I would abolish her court of so called aristocrats. They, we don’t need. NO hereditary titles for them.
No, the nub of the case is not the whining envy which comes across from the letter of Mr Cross. The nub is the non sequitur of the concept of the private ownership of land, on which is based the arrogant intrinsic superiority of the aristocracy and its fawning aspirants.
Ownership of the land we inhabit together is the final and most important distinguishing feature of we Britons.
This land is what we fight for when invasion is threatened. It’s what we are asked to give our lives for when required.
Clearly, the land must be owned in common. There can be no private ownership ...it’s an impossible and ridiculous concept.
However, we know from previous experiments (elsewhere and for mostly different reasons), that when private land ownership has been abolished, the result has been disastrous.
Why?...because nobody then has a direct personal interest to use it well and develop it.
The solution is both fair and simple. The existing owners will have the right to use the land they currently occupy. They can sell this right. They can pass this right to their descendents.
But, only insofar as the community has no complaint.
In the event that the community judges the occupant (subject to clear previously agreed plans) to be incompetent, the community may sell the “right” or part thereof to another.
In the event that the community requires some land for other communal development, then it takes the land but must compensate the current “rightholder” for the income that he loses as a result of this dispossession, for the remainder of his life.
You see immediately that spectacular value increases resulting from planning permission will no longer arise...much to the obvious benefit of the community ...who are responsible for the requirement anyway.
You see also that the smug class conscious superiority of the dreadful landed classes, will be dealt a mortal blow in that although they USE the land, it is only by permission of the community and that everyone knows it. Any Briton will have the right to go anywhere he pleases without restriction provided that he causes no damage nor embarrassment nor other nuisance....and if he does, there must be proper swinging punishment..not slap on the wrist stuff.
This applies only outside of dwelling places in which there will be a right to be completely undisturbed for a max of X square meters.
Adopt this perfectly reasonable and logical system and the class conscious establishment court is finished.
Alternatively, if we choose, all land be owned by the Monarch but only in his/her capacity as the personification of the state itself, ie our community of Britons. Why not?
Nigel Taylor 33 Wove Court 87 Garstang Road PR1 1US
Don’t leave a visit too late
There’s nothing worse I used to think than a family member or friend who constantly promises to call round but never does.
Every day an early rise, shave, shower and a clean shirt just in case ‘today’s the day’ but it never was and it never could be because the promise was empty and the gesture no more than a kindly fib.
I lost my sister last week and discovered that we were both as guilty as anyone when it comes to bad visitor tactics. For my part, I’d been promising to visit for years and now there’s one to call on – I can’t visit her – she can’t visit me.
So, seared into my brain (albeit too late) is: don’t leave things too long, don’t say things you don’t mean and don’t think people live forever. Yours faithfully,
Joseph G Dawson,
9 Ollerton Terrace,
Can anyone explain the sudden disappearance of the 20 mph speed limit signs on Croston Road and Lancaster Road?
We were told that these were put in place for our own safety (never mind the cost!), so does our safety no longer count?
Not that it matters because the limit was rarely adhered to on either of these roads in the daytime – and never at night.
As a result of this reversal in policy, the council will now have to place double 20 mph speed limit signs on every road leading off Croston Road and Lancaster Road, some of which have already appeared (on Station Road), but not, strangely enough, on Oak Road, which leads directly to the large community primary school! I cannot recall seeing this change of policy advertised, and wonder how much these extra 20 mph signs will cost? Perhaps there is some money left over from the £9m budget?
Croston Road Resident
Fig Tree shame
I think it is a shame the Fig Tree has to be re-located from Garstang. The Fig Tree became a leading international visitor centre when Garstang became the first Fairtrade Town 14 years ago.
The Fig Tree is an important part of Garstang’s history as well as an attraction for visitors and provider of education about Fairtrade to local schools.
Being the first Fairtrade town put Garstang on the map and the Fig Tree will be sadly missed when it is no longer in Garstang.
Shirley Gott, Garstang