FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Prince William announces plan to build 24 homes for homeless people in Cornwall
Prince William announces plan to build 24 homes for homeless people in Cornwall
Jump to: Newest in thread
The Prince of Wales has announced plans to build 24 homes to provide temporary accommodation for local people experiencing homelessness on Duchy of Cornwall land in the south-west of England.
Working with the Cornish homelessness charity St Petrocs, the project will provide the homes in Nansledan, a suburb of Newquay, with “wraparound support” including training and job opportunities.
Last year the prince’s foundation announced it would provide £3m to fund the Homewards project, which emulates one run in Finland and aims to help homeless people into permanent accommodation, regardless of their circumstances.
The Duchy also said it planned to create a private rented scheme for Nansledan, for people on lower incomes, providing longer-term tenancies and transparent rent increases.
Looks a substantial investment, not as much as the Duke and Duchess spent on their third home, a cottage near Windsor Castle for their main residence and using £6 million in British taxpayer money to modernize their four-story apartment in Kensington Palace
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why the need to have a dig at them over what they've spent elsewhere?
Just enjoy the good news that this will bring for the local economy and those who benefit from the project..
 "
Balanced, not a dig. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why the need to have a dig at them over what they've spent elsewhere?
Just enjoy the good news that this will bring for the local economy and those who benefit from the project..
Balanced, not a dig. "
What balance is added to the story by the last part, anyone who knows whom they are know the upkeep on their residences is from the public purse..
Cynical rather than balanced.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What you need to bear in mind its taxpayers money from civil list that monarchy take each year which in reality they should not receive as one of richest organisations in the world.
Anyone that recalls the panama papers scandal years ago that showed via panorama investigation showing celebs and very rich folk including the monarchy had hidden away in bank in Panama.
The money was hidden to avoid paying uk tax on it.
Now remember this shower were and still are meant to be head of state here and while likes of self employed example a plumber gets hounded by hmrc year on year if any discrepancies yet our so called leaders take the piss.
So while folk continue to think how wonderful Prince William and rest do a sterling job the money is not theirs.
Smoke and mirrors spring to mind |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’m still thinking about the carrier bags of Saudi cash deposited into Coutts bank by the now king - move along you plebs, nothing to see here.
But just think about it - how shameless you’d have to be to accept money like that, how basic and just plain grubby. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"The money was hidden to avoid paying uk tax on it."
In the case of the Monarchy specifically, its not hidden to avoid tax. His Majesty doesn't need to pay His Majesty's Revenue & Customs...
It is hidden away and obfuscated more for political and public perception reasons. For example, hiding their true level of wealth to make them appear more endearing, not to mention how that wealth was grown over hundreds of years.
As calls for reparations show being able to hide what companies the Royals owned is very useful. There's a reason media keep using the terms like 'colonial past' as it suits those in power to divert blame across society in general as opposed to the very leaders and families that have always held power over the society.
One of the key ways that those with power and influence keep it, aside from control of information flow, is precautions and systems in place that allow them to distance themselves from things. Being able to obfuscate their wealth protects them not just from the wider public, but the politicking that they do among themselves as families try to figure out who has more power than each other.
Feudalism never really went away... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
That aside, at least William is attempting to leverage his influence for good things. A few homes in Cornwall won't do much but his recent calls for a ceasefire in Gaza carry more weight than media let people realise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also, only 24?
Doubt that’ll make a dent"
It's a start. If everyone were to do a little bit, then the whole issue of homelessness would be solved. Almost everyone is waiting for someone else to fix things.
That includes family, community, council, government and more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the case of the Monarchy specifically, its not hidden to avoid tax. His Majesty doesn't need to pay His Majesty's Revenue & Customs..."
King Charles is not legally required to pay tax on his income, but there's a written agreement that he will do so, and therefore he does need to pay HMRC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you put it into context how much money the RF has, and how many houses they themselves occupy as a family, then it’s a fair point to make given the scale of homelessness. Don’t forget that taxpayers money is routinely used by the RF for renovations to their homes and palaces for things like swimming pools
Unless of course you want be be a forelock-tugging prole who is so grateful for the miserly offers of 24 houses that you think you should be grateful - given the thousands of people in the UK that have nowhere to sleep or the families living in temporary accommodation up and down the country
So no, it’s not a miserly response. It’s an angry one if anything because these people could and should do so much more than these random tiny gestures that won’t make a dent
However if you feel we should be grateful, then you do you and it’s probably why the top 1% keep getting richer and the poorest in society keep footing the bill for greed.
Context is everything |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If you put it into context how much money the RF has, and how many houses they themselves occupy as a family, then it’s a fair point to make given the scale of homelessness. Don’t forget that taxpayers money is routinely used by the RF for renovations to their homes and palaces for things like swimming pools
Unless of course you want be be a forelock-tugging prole who is so grateful for the miserly offers of 24 houses that you think you should be grateful - given the thousands of people in the UK that have nowhere to sleep or the families living in temporary accommodation up and down the country
So no, it’s not a miserly response. It’s an angry one if anything because these people could and should do so much more than these random tiny gestures that won’t make a dent
However if you feel we should be grateful, then you do you and it’s probably why the top 1% keep getting richer and the poorest in society keep footing the bill for greed.
Context is everything "
Context is indeed everything and you have provided just enough for me to know you are an angry person and it somewhat clouds your judgement.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"If you put it into context how much money the RF has, and how many houses they themselves occupy as a family, then it’s a fair point to make given the scale of homelessness. Don’t forget that taxpayers money is routinely used by the RF for renovations to their homes and palaces for things like swimming pools
Unless of course you want be be a forelock-tugging prole who is so grateful for the miserly offers of 24 houses that you think you should be grateful - given the thousands of people in the UK that have nowhere to sleep or the families living in temporary accommodation up and down the country
So no, it’s not a miserly response. It’s an angry one if anything because these people could and should do so much more than these random tiny gestures that won’t make a dent
However if you feel we should be grateful, then you do you and it’s probably why the top 1% keep getting richer and the poorest in society keep footing the bill for greed.
Context is everything
Context is indeed everything and you have provided just enough for me to know you are an angry person and it somewhat clouds your judgement...."
Was anything incorrect? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If you put it into context how much money the RF has, and how many houses they themselves occupy as a family, then it’s a fair point to make given the scale of homelessness. Don’t forget that taxpayers money is routinely used by the RF for renovations to their homes and palaces for things like swimming pools
Unless of course you want be be a forelock-tugging prole who is so grateful for the miserly offers of 24 houses that you think you should be grateful - given the thousands of people in the UK that have nowhere to sleep or the families living in temporary accommodation up and down the country
So no, it’s not a miserly response. It’s an angry one if anything because these people could and should do so much more than these random tiny gestures that won’t make a dent
However if you feel we should be grateful, then you do you and it’s probably why the top 1% keep getting richer and the poorest in society keep footing the bill for greed.
Context is everything
Context is indeed everything and you have provided just enough for me to know you are an angry person and it somewhat clouds your judgement....
Was anything incorrect?"
Sir Lancelot, jumping in again  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
Certain Members if the Royal Family are exempt from taxation, King Charles was the first to declare he would pay tax on private income. However, what needs to be understood, is that the overarching wealth of property, is not personal wealth, as it is passed to the next generation for prosperity and safekeeping. In short, it is never owned wealth, just maintained for history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Certain Members if the Royal Family are exempt from taxation"
It's the Monarch, and the first born child. No one else.
"King Charles was the first to declare he would pay tax on private income."
Queen Elizabeth was the first to agree to pay, in 1993. The then Prince Charles agreed at the same time. A new agreement was made when Charles ascended to the throne, and William has agreed to continue paying tax, even though he is no longer legally required to.
"However, what needs to be understood, is that the overarching wealth of property, is not personal wealth, as it is passed to the next generation for prosperity and safekeeping. In short, it is never owned wealth, just maintained for history."
What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king."
Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king.
Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises "
Why would you believe selling the countries heritage would be a good thing, who would purchase it etc.
Crazy short term thinking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king."
"Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises"
King Charles can't decide to sell Crown assets. The only way to sell them off would be to get parliament to pass a law allowing the sale.
Do we really want the UK's history to be sold into private hands? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king.
Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises
King Charles can't decide to sell Crown assets. The only way to sell them off would be to get parliament to pass a law allowing the sale.
Do we really want the UK's history to be sold into private hands?"
Perhaps we could sell off the contents of all of our museums and galleries as well? Inner city parks for housing?
Perhaps our heritage and culture should be abolished and replaced by a faceless utopian reworked community?
We could quickly become a homogenised, faceless society with nothing but hatred towards our past and heritage.
Just remember, there are millions of refugees who want to settle in the UK as opposed to France, Germany, Spain and Italy because they recognise the UK as a preferred option with our culture intact (and who can blame them).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king.
Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises
King Charles can't decide to sell Crown assets. The only way to sell them off would be to get parliament to pass a law allowing the sale.
Do we really want the UK's history to be sold into private hands?
Perhaps we could sell off the contents of all of our museums and galleries as well? Inner city parks for housing?
Perhaps our heritage and culture should be abolished and replaced by a faceless utopian reworked community?
We could quickly become a homogenised, faceless society with nothing but hatred towards our past and heritage.
Just remember, there are millions of refugees who want to settle in the UK as opposed to France, Germany, Spain and Italy because they recognise the UK as a preferred option with our culture intact (and who can blame them).
"
Can’t see that culture remaining into the next century
UK's share of Muslims in the population has increased from 6.3 percent in 2016 to an anticipated 17.2 percent by 2050.
And increasing as a percentage share of the uk population at 1% a year. That is based on the birth rates of those already here and not reliant on further immigration.
By the end of the century UK will predominantly be a Muslim country.
They won’t need the monarchy, and the palaces will be converted to mosques. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"
Just remember, there are millions of refugees who want to settle in the UK as opposed to France, Germany, Spain and Italy because they recognise the UK as a preferred option with our culture intact (and who can blame them).
"
All of those nations host more refugees than the U.K.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king.
Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises
King Charles can't decide to sell Crown assets. The only way to sell them off would be to get parliament to pass a law allowing the sale.
Do we really want the UK's history to be sold into private hands?
Perhaps we could sell off the contents of all of our museums and galleries as well? Inner city parks for housing?
Perhaps our heritage and culture should be abolished and replaced by a faceless utopian reworked community?
We could quickly become a homogenised, faceless society with nothing but hatred towards our past and heritage.
Just remember, there are millions of refugees who want to settle in the UK as opposed to France, Germany, Spain and Italy because they recognise the UK as a preferred option with our culture intact (and who can blame them).
Can’t see that culture remaining into the next century
UK's share of Muslims in the population has increased from 6.3 percent in 2016 to an anticipated 17.2 percent by 2050.
And increasing as a percentage share of the uk population at 1% a year. That is based on the birth rates of those already here and not reliant on further immigration.
By the end of the century UK will predominantly be a Muslim country.
They won’t need the monarchy, and the palaces will be converted to mosques. "
no it wont, those figures are BS.
3.8 million muslims a 10.9% by 2050 the increase would be approximately 4.3 million and at 1% thereafter until 2100 would be 7.1 million.
If the population of the country 67 million rose by half of that in comparison at 0.5% that would be 95 million in 2100.
Miles off.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king.
Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises
King Charles can't decide to sell Crown assets. The only way to sell them off would be to get parliament to pass a law allowing the sale.
Do we really want the UK's history to be sold into private hands?
Perhaps we could sell off the contents of all of our museums and galleries as well? Inner city parks for housing?
Perhaps our heritage and culture should be abolished and replaced by a faceless utopian reworked community?
We could quickly become a homogenised, faceless society with nothing but hatred towards our past and heritage.
Just remember, there are millions of refugees who want to settle in the UK as opposed to France, Germany, Spain and Italy because they recognise the UK as a preferred option with our culture intact (and who can blame them).
Can’t see that culture remaining into the next century
UK's share of Muslims in the population has increased from 6.3 percent in 2016 to an anticipated 17.2 percent by 2050.
And increasing as a percentage share of the uk population at 1% a year. That is based on the birth rates of those already here and not reliant on further immigration.
By the end of the century UK will predominantly be a Muslim country.
They won’t need the monarchy, and the palaces will be converted to mosques.
no it wont, those figures are BS.
3.8 million muslims a 10.9% by 2050 the increase would be approximately 4.3 million and at 1% thereafter until 2100 would be 7.1 million.
If the population of the country 67 million rose by half of that in comparison at 0.5% that would be 95 million in 2100.
Miles off.... "
Statisca figures. Can’t post a link and risk another forum ban for referencing posts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By the end of the century UK will predominantly be a Muslim country.
They won’t need the monarchy, and the palaces will be converted to mosques."
"no it wont, those figures are BS.
3.8 million muslims a 10.9% by 2050 the increase would be approximately 4.3 million and at 1% thereafter until 2100 would be 7.1 million.
If the population of the country 67 million rose by half of that in comparison at 0.5% that would be 95 million in 2100.
Miles off...."
He's also ignoring the fact that, while lots of Muslims arrive here, their children tend to be less Muslim, and the grandchildren even less so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Just remember, there are millions of refugees who want to settle in the UK as opposed to France, Germany, Spain and Italy because they recognise the UK as a preferred option with our culture intact (and who can blame them).
All of those nations host more refugees than the U.K.
"
Yes they do...but still, very many choose the UK as their destination of choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"What also needs to be understood is that the vast majority of what people claim is the royal family's wealth actually belongs to The Crown. Things like Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, don't belong to Charles, and won't belong to William when he becomes king.
Which begs the question to the Crown, why not sell some of these luxury assets and use the money for public services, housing and repaying public debt.
Charlie’s coronation cost £50-100 million, and the crowns jewels on show for a day reported to be valued at between £3-5bn
Enough for some nurses pay rises
King Charles can't decide to sell Crown assets. The only way to sell them off would be to get parliament to pass a law allowing the sale.
Do we really want the UK's history to be sold into private hands?
Perhaps we could sell off the contents of all of our museums and galleries as well? Inner city parks for housing?
Perhaps our heritage and culture should be abolished and replaced by a faceless utopian reworked community?
We could quickly become a homogenised, faceless society with nothing but hatred towards our past and heritage.
Just remember, there are millions of refugees who want to settle in the UK as opposed to France, Germany, Spain and Italy because they recognise the UK as a preferred option with our culture intact (and who can blame them).
Can’t see that culture remaining into the next century
UK's share of Muslims in the population has increased from 6.3 percent in 2016 to an anticipated 17.2 percent by 2050.
And increasing as a percentage share of the uk population at 1% a year. That is based on the birth rates of those already here and not reliant on further immigration.
By the end of the century UK will predominantly be a Muslim country.
They won’t need the monarchy, and the palaces will be converted to mosques.
no it wont, those figures are BS.
3.8 million muslims a 10.9% by 2050 the increase would be approximately 4.3 million and at 1% thereafter until 2100 would be 7.1 million.
If the population of the country 67 million rose by half of that in comparison at 0.5% that would be 95 million in 2100.
Miles off....
Statisca figures. Can’t post a link and risk another forum ban for referencing posts. "
Pew research.
Europe’s Growing Muslim Population
I'm struggling. It's predicting 10pc over 25 years with high immigration.
Your then saying there another 33pc over 50 years with no immigration.
I couldn't see an end century number in the paper so wonder how you got your number. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once the monarchy is slung out then who owns the palaces,castles,land ect?"
They are all owned by the Crown at the moment, and if all the royal family were eliminated somehow, it would all still belong to the Crown. Without a monarch to direct activities, the only organisation with a claim to it would be the government.
If however the royal family were simply exiled, they would still technically be in control of Crown assets. Though I suspect the revolutionary council wouldn't care too much about the legal niceties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once the monarchy is slung out then who owns the palaces,castles,land ect?
Nothing would change, but don’t expect this to happen in your lifetime "
so we would have empty palaces houses ect? I think when goes that will be the end of them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once the monarchy is slung out then who owns the palaces,castles,land ect?
They are all owned by the Crown at the moment, and if all the royal family were eliminated somehow, it would all still belong to the Crown. Without a monarch to direct activities, the only organisation with a claim to it would be the government.
If however the royal family were simply exiled, they would still technically be in control of Crown assets. Though I suspect the revolutionary council wouldn't care too much about the legal niceties."
i always thought the crown was the monarchy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Once the monarchy is slung out then who owns the palaces,castles,land ect?
Nothing would change, but don’t expect this to happen in your lifetime so we would have empty palaces houses ect? I think when goes that will be the end of them"
I think you are incorrect, William will not make the same mistake as his grandmother and will allow succession to take place earlier, keeping the royal family more relevant to the younger generations.
When the royal family is no longer, we will have museums and visitor attractions the same as many other countries, Palace of Versailles being an example.
You should not worry though the monarchy will still hold its place throughout your lifetime and beyond.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once the monarchy is slung out then who owns the palaces,castles,land ect?
Nothing would change, but don’t expect this to happen in your lifetime so we would have empty palaces houses ect? I think when goes that will be the end of them
I think you are incorrect, William will not make the same mistake as his grandmother and will allow succession to take place earlier, keeping the royal family more relevant to the younger generations.
When the royal family is no longer, we will have museums and visitor attractions the same as many other countries, Palace of Versailles being an example.
You should not worry though the monarchy will still hold its place throughout your lifetime and beyond.
"
I think the younger generation will be the ones who will end the monarchy ,and it will be when passes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"i always thought the crown was the monarchy?"
The Crown is an entity made up of the current monarch and the government. It holds the trappings of state, all those things that get used as part of running the country. That includes all the jewels, palaces, state coaches, and physical stuff, along with the responsibilities, and legal powers to make laws, raise taxes, etc.
Charles gets to use all the Crown possessions, because he's the current Monarch, but he doesn't own any of those things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"i always thought the crown was the monarchy?
The Crown is an entity made up of the current monarch and the government. It holds the trappings of state, all those things that get used as part of running the country. That includes all the jewels, palaces, state coaches, and physical stuff, along with the responsibilities, and legal powers to make laws, raise taxes, etc.
Charles gets to use all the Crown possessions, because he's the current Monarch, but he doesn't own any of those things."
Cheers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"In the case of the Monarchy specifically, its not hidden to avoid tax. His Majesty doesn't need to pay His Majesty's Revenue & Customs...
King Charles is not legally required to pay tax on his income, but there's a written agreement that he will do so, and therefore he does need to pay HMRC."
Good luck finding anything at all on the finances of the Monarchy besides what the government say is given to them 'to promote tourism'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
