Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HolyCount]

Yes, it looks awful --- but is far from the worst looking building around .... look at most of the monstrosities that went up in the 60's and 70's.

But ..... (personal feelings towards Charles apart) ....it was an abuse of a priviledged position.

I disagree entirely .. he had an opinion .. so he aired it. just like you and I can and do. The fact the developers listened and acted on his opinion is not his call.

Are we saying that he cannot have an opinion, or voice that opinion

In the subsequent totalitarian state.. who would decide who's opinions are allowed and who's are not

Freedom of speech applies to everyone.. not just those whos's views you agree with.

Yes, he is entitled to have an opinion, as are we all. However, it is not true to claim that we have complete freedom of speech. Our actions are still (rightly or wrongly) controlled by State, Tradition, Constitution, Law, Political Correctness etc., etc.

In this case HRH ran roughshod over the planning process by running to his powerful friends in powerful places. Could he have not, as per the planning process, merely have written in with his objection, as Mr Windsor, to the correct planning authorities?

As it happens, I (reluctantly) agree with Charles's opinion on this occassion, but not with the way he acted. An opinion I am also entitled to hold 

[Elite Pete]

Yes, it looks awful --- but is far from the worst looking building around .... look at most of the monstrosities that went up in the 60's and 70's.

But ..... (personal feelings towards Charles apart) ....it was an abuse of a priviledged position.

I disagree entirely .. he had an opinion .. so he aired it. just like you and I can and do. The fact the developers listened and acted on his opinion is not his call.

Are we saying that he cannot have an opinion, or voice that opinion

In the subsequent totalitarian state.. who would decide who's opinions are allowed and who's are not

Freedom of speech applies to everyone.. not just those whos's views you agree with.

Yes, he is entitled to have an opinion, as are we all. However, it is not true to claim that we have complete freedom of speech. Our actions are still (rightly or wrongly) controlled by State, Tradition, Constitution, Law, Political Correctness etc., etc.

In this case HRH ran roughshod over the planning process by running to his powerful friends in powerful places. Could he have not, as per the planning process, merely have written in with his objection, as Mr Windsor, to the correct planning authorities?

As it happens, I (reluctantly) agree with Charles's opinion on this occassion, but not with the way he acted. An opinion I am also entitled to hold 

Perks of the job, we've all abused them at some time or other

[Entwood]

Yes, it looks awful --- but is far from the worst looking building around .... look at most of the monstrosities that went up in the 60's and 70's.

But ..... (personal feelings towards Charles apart) ....it was an abuse of a priviledged position.

I disagree entirely .. he had an opinion .. so he aired it. just like you and I can and do. The fact the developers listened and acted on his opinion is not his call.

Are we saying that he cannot have an opinion, or voice that opinion

In the subsequent totalitarian state.. who would decide who's opinions are allowed and who's are not

Freedom of speech applies to everyone.. not just those whos's views you agree with.

Yes, he is entitled to have an opinion, as are we all. However, it is not true to claim that we have complete freedom of speech. Our actions are still (rightly or wrongly) controlled by State, Tradition, Constitution, Law, Political Correctness etc., etc.

In this case HRH ran roughshod over the planning process by running to his powerful friends in powerful places. Could he have not, as per the planning process, merely have written in with his objection, as Mr Windsor, to the correct planning authorities?

As it happens, I (reluctantly) agree with Charles's opinion on this occassion, but not with the way he acted. An opinion I am also entitled to hold 

Perks of the job, we've all abused them at some time or other

He never said a single word, or approached the planners, in any way (which WOULD have been a breach) ....

He spoke to the owners about his worries about the architecs ideas, the owners withdrew the application for planning.

In other words, the owners changed their minds. The planning committee may have thrown the plans out anyway.

Now, the debateable point is... how much influence did his views have on the owners decision .. something we will never know .. they MIGHT of disliked the plans anyway !!!

storm, teacup, by "luvvies" in the architect world who always think they know best .. when actually most of them are useless.

[Dishevelled Den]

Yes, it looks awful --- but is far from the worst looking building around .... look at most of the monstrosities that went up in the 60's and 70's.

But ..... (personal feelings towards Charles apart) ....it was an abuse of a priviledged position.

I disagree entirely .. he had an opinion .. so he aired it. just like you and I can and do. The fact the developers listened and acted on his opinion is not his call.

Are we saying that he cannot have an opinion, or voice that opinion

In the subsequent totalitarian state.. who would decide who's opinions are allowed and who's are not

Freedom of speech applies to everyone.. not just those whos's views you agree with.

Yes, he is entitled to have an opinion, as are we all. However, it is not true to claim that we have complete freedom of speech. Our actions are still (rightly or wrongly) controlled by State, Tradition, Constitution, Law, Political Correctness etc., etc.

In this case HRH ran roughshod over the planning process by running to his powerful friends in powerful places. Could he have not, as per the planning process, merely have written in with his objection, as Mr Windsor, to the correct planning authorities?

As it happens, I (reluctantly) agree with Charles's opinion on this occassion, but not with the way he acted. An opinion I am also entitled to hold 

Perks of the job, we've all abused them at some time or other

He never said a single word, or approached the planners, in any way (which WOULD have been a breach) ....

He spoke to the owners about his worries about the architecs ideas, the owners withdrew the application for planning.

In other words, the owners changed their minds. The planning committee may have thrown the plans out anyway.

Now, the debateable point is... how much influence did his views have on the owners decision .. something we will never know .. they MIGHT of disliked the plans anyway !!!

storm, teacup, by "luvvies" in the architect world who always think they know best .. when actually most of them are useless.

I would love to get into this but can't really.

I will chance saying that, at certain levels within the Establishment, things left unsaid often carry as much weight as those that are openly and unequivocally expressed.

The POW and his advisors are well aware of this of course and are past masters of turning it to their advantage.

[HolyCount]

"storm, teacup, by "luvvies" in the architect world who always think they know best .. when actually most of them are useless. "

Can't argue there

TBH though I do tend to allow my judgement to become clouded when it comes to Charlie boy. So will say no more.

[mudflap]

All new buildings here and abroad over the last few hundred years have been controversial - the Eiffel Tower, Nelson's Column, St. Paul's...the list goes on and on, future generations will judge us by our architecture just as we judge past generations on theirs - i'm just glad they got it right, i hope we can get it right most of the time, and common sense and good taste will prevail over corporate lunacy!