Evict the royal parasites!
Andy Rudlin, Farringdon
Our current crop of royals like to make out that they are a more progressive bunch than their predecessors.
However, when it comes to landlordism, King Charles and Prince William are maintaining a long royal tradition of extracting wealth from their subjects.
A recent investigation by Channel 4 has revealed the huge property empires of the King and Prince.
Shockingly, those paying rent to the Crown Estate include the NHS and state schools, ordinary workers who need housing, and local businesses. There have also been reports of workers being evicted from Crown Estate properties following rent hikes.
The report also noted one-in-seven of the properties have the lowest energy standards, leading to black mold, damp, and exorbitant amounts spent on heating to keep homes warm.
We are often told that hard work is rewarded under capitalism. Try telling that to a teacher, care worker, or cleaner who pays rent to monarchs who have barely done a day’s work in their life!
While workers across the country are desperate for pay rises to deal with spiralling living costs, there are no such worries for our King.
Charles is set for a huge £45m income rise: an increase of more than 50 percent from the increased profits of the Crown Estate!
Instead of evicting workers from their homes, it is these royals we should be evicting from their (multiple) palaces.
King Charles evades greenwashing regulations
Rory, Manchester
Earlier this year, King Charles III was given assurances that his lands won’t be affected by a new policy in Welsh law which will require Welsh farmers to use 20% of their land for tree-planting and habitat creation.
In the name of the ‘environment’, this greenwashing law will destroy many poorer farmers, who are already struggling with massive debt, and often work seven days a week just to keep their farm going.
The king owns 50,000 acres of land, compared to the average farmer who owns 118 acres.
In the words of the courts, “as a matter of course” and “legal correctness” it would be “constitutionally inappropriate to prosecute a monarch in whose name the Crown Prosecution Service and courts would act”.
This is yet another case of working people having to shoulder the burden of the climate crisis while the bourgeoisie makes billions in profits.
The laws that apply to us simply don’t apply to the rich. Similarly, the impacts of the climate crisis – flooding, storms, and higher prices – are only a problem for us. The rich can afford to avoid the consequences.
It’s time to finish off what the Levellers and Diggers started by bringing down King Charles, along with the parasitic bourgeoisie and aristocracy.
The ‘free press’ is a sham
Ben Cownley, Manchester
Despite this or that suppression of our liberties by the British state, we will always have the freedom to buy things that align with our views. The choice in Britain is rich, richer, and richest:
- A) Murdoch’s empire: TalkTV, The Sun, The Times, Virgin Radio.
- B) Viscount Northcliffe: Daily Mail, New Scientist, i, and Metro.
- C) Paul Marshall: GB News and The Spectator.
- D) Reach plc: Daily Mirror, Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Sunday Mail, and the magazine OK!, just to name a few.
And there’s the privately-owned TV channels, the state-run BBC, and the international news stations like Sky or Fox (also both owned by Murdoch).
There’s one problem with this ‘free press’: they all say the same thing. It’s funny that we all have the right to free speech, yet only the richest in the world can exercise that right.
Similarly, we have the right to assembly, but not a guarantee that there will be a free hall to host our meetings.
All these media ‘choices’ defend the existence of poverty amidst plenty – wealth that we made, but which has been appropriated by Murdoch’s class. Why should they get the final word?
