Where does it say the deeds of these properties is being transferred to other individuals? It's one thing to disagree with the decision of the government but quite another to make up false stories to bolster what I see as a pretty ridiculous argument. That one versus seven argument is also not valid in my argument. I remember Royalist talking about one Paras versus thousands of Paras as if to say that it is right for one individual to commit heinous crimes and run amuck while everyone else was expected to shut up and watch because it would be worse if more people did it. This property argument sounds even more ridiculous than that because it is based on false premises. The deeds of this are not going to any individual and the properties will be administered by a government that come November will be an elected one that has political legitimacy. National property belongs to the country and it's people and should be managed by an independent trust appointed by an elected government (which we should have later this year or next) on the lines of national parks, museums etc are. But perhaps some of us are incapable of looking at each issue on its own merits and approach it with our pre-conceived political notions about who we support.