What Do You Think ?

[youngmafbog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579052/Prince-Charless-letters-Government-ministers-public.html

I think they should be made public. Charles should be politically neutral but we all know he is not.

If he is 'secretly' lobbying ministers with loopy(or not) views then we should all know.

[Dodger666]

I think the future King is entitled to express an opinion. The Government probably takes as much notice of his comments as they would from any other citizen.

[LazyGun]

Well from what I hear, Prince Charles does appear to wield a fair degree of influence within the relevant departments when it comes to hobby-horses of his; Like Integrative Health Care for instance - lobbying to get the NHS to pay for nonsense like homeopathy.

The Attorney General attempts to defend this secrecy and non-disclosure by claiming that publishing them might undermine the publics opinion over his supposed political neutrality - which implies that his letters demonstrate that he is not politically neutral when it comes to lobbying for public money to be spent in areas where he has a particular interest - and I think the public most definitely have a right to know.

I hope the appeal against the AGs decision at the Supreme Court is won.

[anneasquith]

I do wonder if any notice is taken of Charles from anyone. publish them.............why should he get any preferential treatment. if he has a political view at all ?

[cassa333]

I have never known Prince Charles take sides politicly as such. He has his soap boxes and tries, as anyone else does and is allowed to do, to have a say.!!

[sandyRoe]

Does he understand the duties of a constitutional monarch? It's to let the electorate pick a government to run the country and for him, when the time comes, plays a ceremonial role.

[albaqwerty]

I have always thought (probably mistakenly) that the sender of the letter was entitled to privacy under some law from way back when and it wasn't up to the recipient to divulge the contents.

Would be happy to be incorrect though.

[LazyGun]

If it was a private communication in a personal capacity, or even just letters requesting some clarifications or information then you might be right, alba -but if it is a missive in his official capacity as PoW, using his position of influence to lobby for the spending of public money on a particular hobby horse of his in effective secrecy, then the public have every right to know IMO.

[andy-hughes]

LazyGun - "If it was a private communication in a personal capacity, or even just letters requesting some clarifications or information then you might be right, alba -but if it is a missive in his official capacity as PoW, using his position of influence to lobby for the spending of public money on a particular hobby horse of his in effective secrecy, then the public have every right to know IMO."

I entirely agree.

Failure to publish on these grounds -

'But Mr Grieve exercised his right to a veto, arguing that the letter would damage Charles's 'role as future monarch' because they show him 'disagreeing with Government policy'.

infers that the letters would reveal either an improper level of influence on the government, or that Charles's views are so left-field that the populace might question his sanilty.

But neither of those are justifiable reasons for withloding the letters - if the POW seeks to use influence via his position, then that is inappropriate, and the nation should be made aware. If they are simply private letters expressing a viewpoint, then what does the POW have to fear from publication?

A cover-up is still a cover-up - whatever mealy-mouthed excuse is used to facilitate it.

[jno]

pity. I'm very grateful for his campaigns against the carbuncle architecture that seems to get waved through by empire building councils, and I'd be sorry if he had to stop.