Prince Charles' letters to be published

[ENT]

Prince Charles letters: Supreme Court ruling allows publication

A panel of seven senior judges rules letters written by Charles to government ministers can be revealed to the public
9:56AM GMT 26 Mar 2015


The UK's highest court has refused to overturn a ruling which paved the way for publication of letters written by the Prince of Wales to government ministers.

Supreme Court justices in London rejected a challenge by the Attorney General, the Government's principal legal adviser, against a decision by Court of Appeal judges that he has unlawfully prevented the public seeing the letters.

The appeal judges unanimously ruled last year that the Attorney General has "no good reason" for using his ministerial veto and overriding the decision of an independent tribunal, chaired by a High Court judge, in favour of disclosure of the royal correspondence.

But Supreme Court justices were urged at a hearing in November to find that the Court of Appeal judges "erred" in reaching their conclusion.

On Thursday the court dismissed the Attorney General's appeal.

Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision on the letters, Clarence House said it was "disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld".
Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said there was a "fundamental composite principle" behind the court's reasons for dismissing the appeal.
He announced: "That principle is that a decision of a judicial body should be final and binding and should not be capable of being overturned by a member of the executive."

Clarence House reacted with disappointment to the decision.
A spokeswoman for the Prince said: "This is a matter for the Government. Clarence House is disappointed the principle of privacy has not been upheld."
The move is a major blow for Charles.

Sent to seven government departments, the frank notes penned between September 2004 and March 2005 reflect, according to previous attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs".

Charles has long been accused of "bombarding" ministers with "black spider" memos attacking government policy. His letters are so named after his distinctive handwriting and abundant use of underlining and exclamation marks.

The case is believed to mark the first time that anyone has challenged the Attorney General's powers to block access to information.
In 2005 Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied to see a number of written communications between Charles and various government ministers between September 2004 and April 2005.

At the Supreme Court hearing in November, James Eadie QC, for the Attorney General, told the justices that "the government departments considered that they had no duty to disclose the requested information, and indeed had countervailing duties of confidentiality and as data controllers not to disclose it", and the Information Commissioner agreed.

The Attorney General had "strong grounds for his opinion that the Government and the Commissioner were right to find that the disputed information was exempt".
Mr Eadie told the panel of seven justices: "Everyone has the right to respect for their correspondence.



"Such respect is necessary not only as an aspect of privacy, but also to enable freedom of expression, which would inevitably be inhibited by the removal of the right to communicate privately.
"All the more so in the case of the Prince of Wales, whose freedom to express himself publicly is constrained by his role as heir to the throne."
Charles is known for his strong opinions on a range of topics from the environment and farming to complementary medicine and architecture.

He has faced accusations in the past of "meddling" in day-to-day politics and criticism over his "black spider memos" - the name given to the handwritten letters he pens to government ministers expressing his views.

Mr Evans sought disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), and under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

The Upper Tribunal (UT) declared in September 2012 that he was entitled to see "advocacy correspondence", described as letters the Prince had written seeking to advance the work of charities or to promote views.
The UT decided that the Government was required to disclose 27 out of the 30 requested items of correspondence.

A month after the UT ruling, the Attorney General used his ministerial veto by issuing a certificate under Section 53 of the FOIA.

He said the public could interpret the letters sent to ministers in the last Labour government as showing Charles to be "disagreeing with government policy".
The Attorney General said any perception that Charles had disagreed with Tony Blair's government "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".

• How the Freedom of Information Act has protected the Royal family
In his opinion, Government departments were legally entitled to refuse disclosure because the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince's "preparation for becoming king".

Mr Evans accused him of failing to show "reasonable grounds" for blocking disclosure.
The journalist lost his case in the High Court, but Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Pitchford all agreed at the Court of Appeal that the Attorney General had gone wrong in law and the Section 53 certificate should be quashed.

At the time of the Court of Appeal ruling, the Attorney General was Dominic Grieve. The office is currently held by Jeremy Wright QC.

Video: Prince Charles letters: Supreme Court ruling allows publication - Telegraph

[kingwilly]

if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".

He was the one who forfeited his position of political neutrality in writing his spider memos in the first place, he can live with the fall out now.
Silly man.

[ENT]

That he is.

[VocalNeal]

Quite a few people off the hounors list for good then?
Political neutrality is one thing, writing it down is silly.
He should have invited the guy(s) to lunch and voiced his dismay.
That being said maybe he just got overwhelmed with frustration?

Anyway anyone is entitled to their opinions and he still remains politically neutral as he has now and will have no real authority in that area.

Just political circus stuff.

[ENT]

What's happened is that arrogant pr*ck Charley Windsor's been told to pull his neck in and stop demanding extraordinary privileges because of his title to royalty.

Mind you, at least he writes his own speeches and letters, more than the seedy UK politicians can do.

I'll bet they don't even know how to write an esay, let alone a speach, or (as in Charley's case) a rambling harangue.

[billy the kid]

how to write an esay, let alone a speach, o

come on ENT sharpen up ure skills.

what are ya smokin there.

[ENT]

D'ya reckon all those politicians write their own speeches?

Like hell they do! They have an army of ghost writers.

Just an intro to the gang of spin-doctors;
Speechwriter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[billy the kid]

not only do they have speechwriters but also people who teach them how to act and use voice intonation.

George Osborne on Budget day or a Defence minister do the hard man routine.

[Neverna]

The letters should (could) make interesting reading. I can't wait!

[Necron99]

He has access to Ministers, but they are under no obligation to do as he asks.
He is still a citizen and able to air his views.
How is that different or worse than Lord Fluffybottom or Ex Chancellor Wrinkledick taking money from slanty eyed businessmen to gain the ministerial ear?

[BaitongBoy]

I wonder if there are any dirty letters like the ones that James Joyce wrote to his wife, Nora...

That would be fun...

[Cujo]

I think he's perfectly within his rights to write to ministers or MPs or whoever and expect his privacy.
How would any of you like it if you wrote to your MP, the minister for whatever or anyone for that matter, only to have those letters, your private correspondence, published.
Charles is a twit for sure, but he does have some influence. Time to man up and act like a fucking prince and get a few chaps from the SAS with Royal sympathies to pay a late night vistit without prejudice to Guardian journalist Mr. Rob Evans (suspicious sounding name if ever there was one) and the seven judges.
I mean what's the good of being the crown prince if you can't use your influence to 'take care of' these things.
I'm sure the crown prince of Saudi doesn't have these problems.
Prince Charles, bloody sap.

[ENT]

I'm interested in his "black spider" scrawl.

Handwriting analysis is an interesting subject, especially in the context of given topics.

Charley's handwriting would (and does) give graphologists a feast of interesting angles and pressures to analyze.

Messy bugger, with problems.

[BaitongBoy]

a late night vistit without prejudice

Heh...That's ripe as the Big Mango...

[thaimeme]

Fuck Prince Charles.

[ENT]

He's allready been done, according to palace rumours.

[ltnt]

Nice guy Charles, not much can go wrong under his guidance...

[ENT]

Aw fwk!

The proposed head of the C of E, phony prince of Wales, heir to the crown of the Battenburg house of Windsor, a wannabe tampon of Camilla (so recorded in a telephone tap), himself saying he doesn't want to be king, may he receive respite from his troubles, as he was born into the rubbish, poor chap.

He'll be by-passed as king, his son William will not become the Prince of Wales, and the future of the English monarchy will be relegated to a has-been status within our lifetimes, I predict.

Long live Wales, Cymru am byth!

[ENT]

A twlll ddyn pob sais.

Translated;

Arseholes, every English.


Or;

Pob o fochin!

All pigs.

[Neverna]

Prince Charles 'black spider' memos reveal lobbying of Tony Blair

Publication of royal’s letters following freedom of information battle reveals correspondence with PM on helicopters, farming and complementary medicine

A cache of secret memos sent by Prince Charles to senior UK ministers has finally been published, following a 10-year freedom of information battle between the Guardian and the government. The letters reveal that Charles lobbied ministers, including the former prime minister Tony Blair, on a wide range of issues, including agriculture, the armed forces, architecture and homeopathy.

The correspondence was disclosed after the Guardian won a decade-long legal tussle with the government, which had argued that publication of the letters would make it hard for Charles to maintain a position of public neutrality when he became king.

The letters, published at 4pm on Wednesday, reveal how Charles lobbied Tony Blair when he was prime minister to replace Lynx military helicopters. Charles complained: “I fear this one more example of our armed forces being asked to do an extremely challenging job without the necessary resources.”

He also complained to Blair in great detail about “increasing problems” affecting the dairy sector, saying that the regulatory body, the Office of Fair Trading, had become “a serious obstacle to developing dairy co-operatives”. He warned Blair about the “anxieties which are developing particularly among beef farmers and to a lesser degree sheep farmers” as a consequence of a government midterm review.

The memos to ministers, including Blair, Elliot Morley, John Reid, and Charles Clarke, covered a range of areas, from the diet of schoolchildren to fisheries – in particular the Patagonian toothfish – the built environment, beef and sheep farming, herbal medicines and defence. The government blocked the release of the letters, claiming that their publication risked undermining Charles’s “position of political neutrality”, which would not easily be recovered when he became king.

Prince Charles 'black spider' memos reveal lobbying of Tony Blair | UK news | The Guardian

Read the Prince Charles 'black spider' memos in full: Read the Prince Charles 'black spider' memos in full | UK news | The Guardian

[Horatio Hornblower]

Is Charlie Bothered.?