Jim Graham Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 How far back exactly are you planning to go? Or rather how far forward. If you inherited land from your parents should that now be forfeit? Are farmers not able to buy land? I've seen plenty of agricultural land for sale, I can help you out with a link to rightmove if you're struggling. You singled out this particular family to have land stolen from them, presumably because you don't like the way they gained the land. Once you've bought some land though what's to stop me saying that I don't like the price you paid and stealing it from you? Here's a summing up of the situation from mediaeval times: The monarch granted land in his kingdom to his trusted lords and companions for their support and enjoyment thus delegating responsibility for the defence and administration of those lands. The lord was able to prosper from his lands and in return became the King's vassal owing him allegiance and service. I don't know how the Cavendishes came by their land but what I am saying is that if it was granted by the crown in the past they should not be classed as owning it. They should be classed as custodians of the land on behalf of the people. The profits from the land whether it is farming, mineral rights, foresting or whatever should go to the crown not into the pockets of the Cavendishes. Basically, those Lords should no longer be allowed to prosper from those lands. The people should be prospering from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICKY BLAKE Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 what is your problem are you a right to rome person? do you think you have the right to go where you like? the state still owns a lot of land government buildings & hospitals and other areas seeing what a mess people make after Glastonbury I am happy their are still land owners,YOU WOULD NOT DREAM OF TIDYING UP PROBABLY SOME ONE ELSES JOB NOT YOURS! are you in favour of illegal Tipping of waste rather than hiring a Skip perhaps? Or perhaps YOU OBJECT TO PEOPLE WITH MONEY....TRY THINKING A BIT? WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 The only legitimate source of property is labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57Varieties Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Here is what i am personally going to do to rid myself of these Royal parasites. 1) Im going to stop buying alcohol. Reasons. Alcohol companies pay huge money to lobby groups, these lobby groups then bung this cash to whichever polictical party to keep Cannabis illegal. Cannabis Cures cancer and countless other conditions. Cannabis can be turned into a fuel more efficient than petrol (Bio ethanol). Cannabis seeds can be eaten. Cannabis can be turned into plastic and produce car body panels 10 times stronger than steel. 2) I have improved my diet so dont get ill in the first place. I eat real food now instead of produced gloop from chainstores, that is full of chemicals and GMO's. Sprayed with radioactive fertalizer, Irradiated to kill all the nutrients (Which just so happen keep me healthy). You can keep your mass produced garbage designed for the profit of the farmer and shareholder, I'll grow my own seen as i can't trust you to grow it properly for me, and i cant even trust my government to make sure my food is safe because all my politicians are members of secret societies and have sold their souls for Profit at human expense. They allow corporate giants to do as they like because they are just puppets for the invisible power. But im not afraid it just like the movie the Wizrard of Oz, behind the scenes is a sad pathetic old man. You can keep your flouridated water, I distill my own water instead of drinking POISON. 3) I will eventually sell my car in the near future. I have built a motor bike powered by 4 golf trolley batteries and i am now building a windmill to charge my batteries. The less oil and petrol i buy means less brown people dying in fake wars (weapons of mass destuction my backside). Bankers, Royal families and secret societies are the true weapons of mass distruction. 4) I havnt paid any bills in a year and i have made myself homeless (in the legal sense). I have a roof over my head but i am not legally registered anywhere. 5) I shop at the markets and sole traders as often as possible. Change is only possible if we change ourselfs, it starts from within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The only legitimate source of property is labour. I'm not surprised you haven't got any then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Here's a summing up of the situation from mediaeval times: The monarch granted land in his kingdom to his trusted lords and companions for their support and enjoyment thus delegating responsibility for the defence and administration of those lands. The lord was able to prosper from his lands and in return became the King's vassal owing him allegiance and service. I don't know how the Cavendishes came by their land but what I am saying is that if it was granted by the crown in the past they should not be classed as owning it. They should be classed as custodians of the land on behalf of the people. The profits from the land whether it is farming, mineral rights, foresting or whatever should go to the crown not into the pockets of the Cavendishes. Basically, those Lords should no longer be allowed to prosper from those lands. The people should be prospering from them. So any land once granted by the crown should revert to state ownership, how about if it's been sold on since? How about if you bought the freehold on your house, but originally it was granted to a lord, do you now loose your land (do you get to keep the house)? How do you legislate for this, how far back do you go, is it just the land you confiscate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvfru/671/67109.htm It does require that they own land which is registered farm land and capable of producing food though. Simply owning land is not a guarantee of an income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Have the people of Darnall been robbed of land, which might belong to them here? In the Attercliffe Enclosure Act it stated that the Duke of Norfolk, Gamalial Milner and other large landowners claimed to be the proprietors of the commons. The claim by these freeholders was totally unfounded and could not be sustained on either legal or moral grounds. The inhabitants had acquired legal rights of common under the law of the land. However, when these lands became more valuable because of the growth of population, trade and commerce, the current landholders wanted to inclose and appropriate them. The landowner could not do this without the consent of every interest which had grown up by custom and lapse of time, so what could not be done by the Lord of the Manor was done by Acts of Parliament http://www.sheffieldindexers.com/Memories/CherishedMemories_InclosureAwards.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The only legitimate source of property is labour. What is your definition of labour? Does going down the jobcentre to sign on count as labour? After all that's how a lot of people get their property. On your planet am I allowed to have the property my dad laboured for? If not who should get it? You? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 In the Attercliffe Enclosure Act it stated that the Duke of Norfolk, Gamalial Milner and other large landowners claimed to be the proprietors of the commons. The claim by these freeholders was totally unfounded and could not be sustained on either legal or moral grounds. The inhabitants had acquired legal rights of common under the law of the land. However, when these lands became more valuable because of the growth of population, trade and commerce, the current landholders wanted to inclose and appropriate them. The landowner could not do this without the consent of every interest which had grown up by custom and lapse of time, so what could not be done by the Lord of the Manor was done by Acts of Parliament http://www.sheffieldindexers.com/Memories/CherishedMemories_InclosureAwards.htm Thanks for the supporting evidence showing that vested interests in the past have used their power to deprive the people of land and use it for their own benefit. So it's not just land that was gifted by the crown, there is also land that the establishment have effectively gifted to themselves by act of parliament in the days before democracy. What I am suggesting is that a new land reform is required to deprive those vested interests of the benefit of the land and put the cash into the public coffers. In the 21st century there is no justification for land being controlled by a small number of people who were given it before the people had a say. Can anybody disagree with this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.