...
3. A decision has been made for that £250 Million to be part of the Sovereign Grant, rather than a business expense of Crown Estates
...

If the Monarch is occupying the property then it's the Monarch's responsibility to pay it out of their money

This is not a new thing

It is an established rule

The King hasn't received a windfall from the taxpayer - because that expense has not been taken away from the Crown Estate and given to the government (via the Monarch) - that expense was never the Crown Estate's to start with

I literally just read the part where you suggested the Monarch has any control over anything to do with the Crown Estate and spun it off there

I read a lot of the books when I worked for a law firm doing conveyancing and amongst that was very much the central principle that - the Crown Estates are completely independent

I think there's plenty of questions that can be raised about the Monarch's finances - particularly their private business

But the Crown Estate paying the government all it's money

And the government allocating a small portion of that to fund the Head of State - does not seem controversial

The government being able to use some of the money from the Crown Estate to fund the administrative headquarters of the UK Head of State also doesn't seem controversial

To clarify 1 point, it is true to say that the Monarch has no direct control over what is currently part of the Crown Estate. What they do have control over is what remains outside of that public control.
...

That - does not make sense

The Monarch has no control over the Crown Estate

If, for example, the Crown Estate wanted to add Balmoral to their holdings they would have to buy it from the Monarch

It's true that they probably wouldn't agree to sell it - but why would the Crown Estate ever want to buy it?

There's a whole bunch of expensive property that costs the Crown Estate tonnes of money and doesn't provide a revenue

The Crown Estate makes a billion pounds profit a year - it doesn't do that by buying even more unprofitable property

So even if the Monarch wanted to be able to sell Balmoral to them - they wouldn't agree to buy it

...
To quote the article you provided, "The Sovereign Grant is drawn from Public Funds"...
...

Technically the Sovereign Grant is all paid out by general taxation

But (using the new figures) - the Crown Estate gives the government 100% of it's money

The government gives the Monarch money equal to 20% of what they have received from the Crown Estate

Doesn't that seem a lot like the King is paying 80% tax on all his "public" property

And Occupied Royal Residences - which Buckingham Palace is because it is the administrative headquarters of the Monarchy even if no one lives there - are parts of.the Crown Estate which are the responsibility of the monarch

Which is worse - for the Monarch

If they had any say they would leave that as a liability for the Crown Estate - because then they wouldn't have to pay for it

The government made the extra money available because this is the administrative H.Q. of the Head of State - so mildly important

But that was all a percentage of the money that was originally taken from the Crown Estate to start with

The article you posted has very little in common with what you have been saying

You seem to be mainly talking about the Crown Estate but referring to their private finances - which is a completely different topic

If you were interested in the Crown Estate finances they publish them every year in their annual report - you can get it here https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-us/annual-report

...

Now the Royals receive £100 million a year of taxpayers money. As a mixture of expenses and a percentage of profits from Crown Estates-although no-one knows exactly how much that bit is. It's a secret. We're not told how much of that £100 mill is expenses, and how much is profit. Because it is accepted they get a percentage of profit.
...

I have a feeling your opinions on this might be a little emotion based because some of this information (like how the monarch has no control over what property is in the Crown Estate and how the Sovereign Grant is calculated) - is not difficult to find.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monarchy-funding-sovereign-grant-royal-family-b3003165.html

"The Royal Trustees’ review determined that the Sovereign Grant will now be calculated as 20.5 per cent of Crown Estate net profits from 2027-28, an increase from the current rate of 12 per cent, for the next five years."

That would be more than a £100 million in the past - last year the Crown Estate made a £1.1bn profit for example; but that profit is expected to fall quite a lot in the next few years because of regulatory changes.


I'm not sure where you're getting that any of the Sovereign Grant comes from general taxation - have you got a source for the expenses part?

... The Monarch also gets to choose which are "private" properties, and not part of the Crown Estate. ..

That isn't true

William the Conquerer introduced feudalism - which meant the monarch nominally owned all the land

The Civil War established that "the people", in the form of Parliament, were Sovereign over the Crown - which meant the end of feudalism

But the Monarch still owned a vast property estate - the balance that was struck was that the Monarch kept ownership but out of the revenue they had to pay for most government things (like the Civil Service and the countries defence for example)

George III changed that - rather than the Monarch having to fund government things he gave the revenue to the government, and they in turn gave the Monarch money to live on

The Crown Estate is neither the property of the government, or the property of the reigning Monarch - it is basically its own entity

The government gets all the revenue - but with an agreement to pay some of it to the Monarch

-- Completely separately to this, sometimes the King or Queen buys their own property

Sandringham was bought in 1862, Balmoral was bought in 1852 - they were just bought like anyone else would buy private property - nothing to do with the Crown Estate

The Monarch has zero control over the Crown Estate, they do not manage the Crown Estates and can't take things out or add to them.

Whether they should have tax concessions is another thing - that's very complex. Basically all very wealthy people should have tax concessions because it's very easy for them to avoid paying any tax's - giving them concessions is basically a way of tricking them into paying more tax than if you gave them nothing. No concesssions - they'll try and avoid it all; with concessions they'll pay less - but more than they would otherwise. And the actuall amount they pay is vastly more than everyone else so it's a pretty vital source of revenue.

Good luck on the recuperation

Unlucky on the hospital catering

I had some surgery last year at the same hospital that I worked in the kitchen of many years ago, and their catering has vastly improved.

I imagine someone high up in the health authority has been convinced of the rehabilitative benefit of excessively good nutrition rather than meeting minimum requirements.

It's a shame that this isn't a bit more uniform across the whole of the country.

[entirely]

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 

I take your point here, but there is a huge difference between "hiding a cure" and being happy having a "decades long patent" on something that alleviates symptoms (which may have arisen from an attempt to find a cure).

 

I'm not sure you do entirely get the point

If a company such as AstraZeneca researches a cure for something and ends up with a good treatment for it - that might have taken about $1bn to get to market.

If they have a 20 year patent that means they must make at least $50 million a year to get their R&D money back

If a different company, such as Pfizer were researching the same cure and get beaten to the treatment by AZ - they'll keep on researching the cure.

If they get a cure 5 years after AZ got their treatment it means Pfizer will patent their cure for 20 years.

And AstraZeneca has 15 years left on a patent which is basically worthless - because who is going to pay for the treatment when they can just pay for the cure

In this model the profit maximisation is for AZ to patent the treatment - and still carry on researching the cure.

That's obviously hugely simplified - but it's basically the reason why research will never get stifled.

If it works (for a middle class western customer) - it will make a profit

And if your pharma company doesn't make that profit - one of your competitors will.

.... On his advice my other half had chemo back in the UK, she had 4 drugs, 3 were artificial copies of natural remedies. If the drugs companies can't make money out of something they are unlikely to pay for research to prove that it works.

There is always not enough money to research everything, but the usual criteria for ranking isn't how much money it might make but how likely it is to work

If it works - pharma companies can make money out of it

We know this because - you've already stated that they do it

Anything that is naturally curative in nature is more convenient and often more effective once a company has worked out a way to mass produce it and put it in a shop

On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically

Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
 
The only time when not making money stops research is when the entire market for a disease - are poor

This is why there's a whole branch called "neglected tropical disease" - these are all the diseases that it is not profitable for private companies to research because it wouldn't be guaranteed to get their research money back - so they rely on charitable foundations and government grants. it's worth noting the majority of all scientific research done worldwide is government grants and not private companies - for example even if zero pharma companies spent money on cancer research it would still be one of the most researched areas because of all the government grants that go towards it.

Unless anyone is planning on moving to deepest African then they're not really going to be affected by that

Anything that can be sold to comfortable middle class westerners will always be researched because it will always make money

And we definitely know this - because the Wellness alternative health industry makes more money than Big Pharma does

I've been taking Vitamin D for a while, it is supposed to combat Alzheimer's but you have to take at least a certain mg per day and you need to take it together with Vitamin C too as they work together. My Dr didn't know that  

Although there definitely is a general problem with doctors not generally keeping up to date with new research - there is no study (as of yet) to confirm this link

This sums it up

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-and-dementia/what-do-we-know-about-diet-and-prevention-alzheimers-disease

In particular the paragraph

But despite early findings of possible benefits for brain health, no vitamin or supplement has been proven to prevent Alzheimer’s in people. Overall, evidence remains weak because many studies were too small or too brief to be conclusive.

Which is to say various vitamins and supplements might help - but statistically there isn't enough evidence to back that up yet - that would be why the average GP wouldn't necessarily know anything about it

[Probably not for much longer, apparently...lol]

..
I turned 60 in December ...
..

Well I'm okay then - I only turn 50 next week.

..
 can confirm that from 50 onwards is all downhill so far.
..

oh.... I see...   :|             Probably not for much longer, apparently...lol

 

..
I turned 60 in December ...
..

Well I'm okay then - I only turn 50 next week.

..
 can confirm that from 50 onwards is all downhill so far.
..

oh.... I see...   :|

Not strictly a politician, but wanted to highlight the stupid pronouncement of some senior official at Scope, the Charity.

He has been referring to the suspension and then dismissal of the Eastenders actor, Jamie Borthwick. Who has been dismissed for the one-off use of the offensive ableist word "mongoloid". Regardless of the fact that not only was it a one-off, it was not in any way connected to his employment as an actor on Eastenders.

If we are all liable to summary dismissal for using one unwise word, not sure how many people would be in employment. But language changes over time. Words that were once in common usage are now deeply offensive. Which, IMHO, requires education. Not dismissal. But it was the attitude of Scope that particularly rankled. The quote started with:-

"Attitudes and language like this are never acceptable".

So. A word that once had medical connotations relating to Down syndrome. That, over time, became synonymous with an offensive slur that it ceased to be acceptable. Something that not everybody always appreciates.

If only I could think of another word referring to people with Down syndrome. That, similarly, is now no longer acceptable. Which, presumably, that man at Scope believes "are never acceptable".

Scope. Known for 90 years as the Spastic Society. Might have hoped for a little more understanding.

This makes it sound like it's a word that's only recently changed meaning

For comparison spastic was being used in a medical sense well into the 1990s

Whereas mongoloid stopped being a medical term in the 1950s

Whether people should have a 1 strike and you're out rule is another issue but this actor was born in the 1990s - he has only ever known it as an offensive term. It's possible his parents have only ever known it as an offensive term.

Paparrazi shot of Tikay reviewing modern music

Click to see full-size image.

Ralph (karabiner) sent me some lovely photos from Wollaton Park Golf Club where's he's been a member for a very long time I believe.

The Course sits is overlooked by the beautiful Wollaton Hall & is famous for the herds of Deer that roam around freely. 

Has there always been a golf course there?

I took these about 10 years ago

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Did I just not notice a massive golf course next to it?

The golf club about to celebrate it's centenary, but it is a big park.

Thanks, my family also come from Nottingham - which is another reason that maybe I should have noticed.

But, to be fair, I wasn't ever really looking

Ralph (karabiner) sent me some lovely photos from Wollaton Park Golf Club where's he's been a member for a very long time I believe.

The Course sits is overlooked by the beautiful Wollaton Hall & is famous for the herds of Deer that roam around freely. 

Has there always been a golf course there?

I took these about 10 years ago

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Did I just not notice a massive golf course next to it?