Should BBC presenter revealed the MP was in US on holiday

I wondered how far this "We have to protect property" idea would be taken. If say someone who owned vast amounts of land and property was elected would they be entitled to have all of that land and properties protected by the state, regardless of the cost?
Personally I would say the official residences and one home address is enough.

Well., perhaps a rethink is needed over what we (taxpayers) protect.

Royal residences are often left empty, because they can't live everywhere they own at once - they have more than enough wealth, so perhaps they should also employ private security?

I think protection for the family wherever they are and one official residence.

Ok, but it might get a bit complicated with the royals. They constantly shuffle homes.

New new drilling will cause a lot more damage to the world that a few people climbing on a roof.

Well, I don't know about that, but I'm not sure what climbing on a roof will achieve.🤔

Ilovecheese

I think protection for the family wherever they are and one official residence.

That's what I think.

How many homes does he need? Yes protection required at Downing street plus 1 other residence. Are you suggesting the UK pays for his Californian residence also? Where does the family reside notmally do his girls go to boarding school perhaps as his constituency is Richmond in Yorkshire. Does anyone know?

Oldbat1

How many homes does he need? Yes protection required at Downing street plus 1 other residence. Are you suggesting the UK pays for his Californian residence also? Where does the family reside notmally do his girls go to boarding school perhaps as his constituency is Richmond in Yorkshire. Does anyone know?

Sunak's daughters both went to Glendower School in London- a private prep school. The elder is reported to have moved to Wycombe Abbey a boarding school.
Sunak has a London Town house and a flat as well as 10 Downing Street and Chequers. The Yorkshire house is his constituency place.
And thousands of children are homeless and living in temporary accommodation.

Of course, apart from Downing Street and one residence, the actually property should be protected by private security if considered needful.

I think it's quite a good eye catching protest, actually, not harming others. Good for Greenpeace.

Downing Street and Chequers don’t belong to Sunak, they belong to the state. He only has use of them, exactly the same as every other PM we’ve ever had and every PM we will have in the future. Will you complain when Starmer has use of them Glorianny? And will you complain when Starmer has a constituency home and a home in London (and we pay to buy his home in London and the London home of most other MPs. Now that is something to complain about in my opinion.) The PM will always have four homes unless he/she actually lives in London. They cannot have any fewer than four. It’s got nothing to do with homeless children and doesn’t make a jot of difference to homelessness in this country.

Wyllow I was surprised to see it was GreenPeace on Sunsk’s roof. I didn’t know they still existed and I was very surprised to hear that their chief director earns a hundred grand a year. I certainly won’t be donating to GreenPeace to keep her in luxury any time soon.

Those who support this demonstration you wouldn’t object if they climbed onto the roof of your property ?

I havn't given the go ahead to destroy a bit more of the planet. Had I done so I would deserve the same treatment.
More fuss about a peaceful protest than about his ridiculous and wrong action.

I don’t support it Annie and I’d be very upset if anyone climbed on to my roof unless they were there legitimately in order to maintain or repair it with my permission.

Glorianny

I wondered how far this "We have to protect property" idea would be taken. If say someone who owned vast amounts of land and property was elected would they be entitled to have all of that land and properties protected by the state, regardless of the cost?
Personally I would say the official residences and one home address is enough.

I don’t think that’s the point. It’s not about the state protecting the house of somebody in the public eye, whoever it is. Trespassing on private property and climbing on the roof just isn’t on, it’s breaking the law. I wouldn’t be happy if it was my house, and neither would you. I hope the protesters have the book thrown at them.

I don’t support it Maddyone , no matter the wealth a home is
a place of refuge and safety , well it should be.

Anniebach

Those who support this demonstration you wouldn’t object if they climbed onto the roof of your property ?

If it were my 3rd or fourth home and I was hardly ever there and I was acting in a way that really mattered on something I cared about?

If it were of any use I'd help them put the material up, but I doubt a very small suburban home would somehow have the same cache.

So not comparable. Most of us live somewhere all the time and have no extra extra (extra) mostly empty homes here and abroad.

Lying empty when others need homes, too.

Yes indeed Annie. And the fact that the PM has the use of state owned properties temporarily doesn’t affect that.

The family were on holiday, Greenpeace did not compromise their safety in any way.

Wyllow you’re missing the point. Sunak doesn’t use his own properties at the moment because he uses the official properties. But that’s a temporary situation. Two of the four properties he has are not his.

Of course they weren’t unsafe at this time. But that’s not the point. No one has the right to invade and climb upon and possibly damage someone else’s property.

Can it be called an invasion though, if there is nobody in.

Yes it was an invasion of private property

maddyone

Wyllow you’re missing the point. Sunak doesn’t use his own properties at the moment because he uses the official properties. But that’s a temporary situation. Two of the four properties he has are not his.

I wouldnt agree with it if they were there!