The Director of US National Intelligence has actually used the word "extra-terrestrial": as a possibility the US intel community is actively and seriously addressing
"Welcome to a brave new world that acknowledges the UFO reality…
Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence…
“Always there’s also the question of ‘is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?”"
People love to blame faceless bureaucrats because they are, well, faceless. It's just easier. But it is not the case they are the elite.
Bureaucrats only have such authority or responsibility invested in them by representatives. For everyday people the bureaucrats are in charge, but MPs and Lords have the capability to set the rules on their own behaviour - they divested it to others because they'd proven they could not be trusted with it themselves. And they just reproved it. If they don't want to do training etc they can hold firm on that, I'd agree they should not feel forced to do it, but if they choose to give in to it that's their choice.
You haven't encountered those who believe themselves to be "in charge"?
My favourite was the couple who ran a charity. That lobbied various governments for funding, so that they could lobby various governments for funding. No actual third worlders were bothered in this cycle. They (the.... leaders of the charity) had a charming Georgian house with an In/Out gravel drive. Complete with two Range Rovers, with his'n'hers vanity plates..... All very symmetrical.....
They were so very clear that they were part of the great and the good.
I have encountered them (although that example is not of faceless bureaucrats). But ultimately those in power can trim the sails of bureaucrats if they wish, and if they find they cannot get support for that because no one trusts them (as Boris just found out), that speaks to a bigger problem than bureaucrats being too powerful.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
As far as being sad when people you don't actually know die, I think its called Empathy.
I was unimpressed when Diana died. As a friend said at the time, I was more upset when Freddie Mercury died. And if you will get into a car with a drugged-up and drunk driver..
However the Queen has been a constant in my life and I have always been impressed by her sense of duty, and her faith - although I don't share it myself. And I would rather owe allegiance to a person than a country, which is a legal fiction created by the Peace of Westphalia. So I will be a little sad.
I think your point underscores the fact that people getting very sad to the point of tears over the death celebrities isn't really about empathy as Richard suggests (or sympathy).
What people think about when a famous person dies isn't principally the individual or the grieving family (they get mentioned, but I really don't think it's at the heart of it) but what the person meant to THEM and how their passing affects THEM.
That's not a bad thing particularly, but I'm not sure it's empathy in the true sense. I will probably feel similarly to you when the Queen goes, but it won't really be about sharing common feeling with grieving relatives of hers.
And I think the Princess Diana thing was different again. No doubt quite a lot of people were genuinely sad because she was a prominent figure for many years, a lot of people had followed her story, some people admired her, and many remembered the Royal Wedding as a big national event and there was some nostalgia there. But there was also a heck of a lot of hysteria magnifying all that - a lot of competitive emoting which seemed fairly distasteful to many of us at the time.
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
You seem to have forgotten the Vatican City, whose legislature is made up of Cardinals appointed by the Pope.
I think when comparing countries it is pretty reasonable not to think about Vatican City, which might well technically count, but is not exactly relevant for comparitive purposes for country statistics and much else. Administratively a comparison with an elective theocracy of circa 500 residents, less than a mid sized housing estate, is not going to be super useful.
Yet the Vatican city is not only a mini city state, it is also the effective capital of the Catholic Church and that has 1.3 billion members ie more than any nations apart from China and India.
Indeed if it was not for the Reformation and the Church of England replacing the Roman Catholic church as the state church in England, we would likely not have bishops in the Lords now though we would have rather more cardinals in the Vatican city
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
GKC was a twat. It's probably safer to be tyrannised by bureaucrats rather than angry toffs with swords, and you don't have to know too much of his oeuvre to understand that "alien" almost certainly means "Jewish."
I think we can aim higher than Cressida Dick for unaccountable overlords.
Simply retreating in the face of problems with democracy to "Guardians"* is not increasing or improving democracy.
The commentators are missing the point. It doesn't matter if Verstappen meant it or not, he gained an unfair advantage. If he did mean it, he should be black flagged and banned for a number of races.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
As far as being sad when people you don't actually know die, I think its called Empathy.
I was unimpressed when Diana died. As a friend said at the time, I was more upset when Freddie Mercury died.
Last half hour or so of Freddie Mercury tribute concert (1992) is on SKY Arts right now.
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
You seem to have forgotten the Vatican City, whose legislature is made up of Cardinals appointed by the Pope.
I think when comparing countries it is pretty reasonable not to think about Vatican City, which might well technically count, but is not exactly relevant for comparitive purposes for country statistics and much else. Administratively a comparison with an elective theocracy of circa 500 residents, less than a mid sized housing estate, is not going to be super useful.
Yet the Vatican city is not only a mini city state, it is also the effective capital of the Catholic Church and that has 1.3 billion members ie more than any nations apart from China and India
Does the Vatican legislature pass laws that affect those 1.3bn people directly , set taxes for them. Does it police arrest those 1.3bn and put them on trial if they transgress the laws set by that legislature?
I don't know the answer to that question, but given we're treating Vatican City as a country on a technicality, unless the answer is yes it is not a valid comparison to extend the reach of that legislature to catholics worldwide, if they are not under its rules.
The commentators are missing the point. It doesn't matter if Verstappen meant it or not, he gained an unfair advantage. If he did mean it, he should be black flagged and banned for a number of races.
I'm generally pretty fair to Verstappen, but this keeps on happening (or Verstappening, as it were) and it just doesn't keep making sense for him to not be penalised.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspects of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The Director of US National Intelligence has actually used the word "extra-terrestrial": as a possibility the US intel community is actively and seriously addressing
"Welcome to a brave new world that acknowledges the UFO reality…
Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence…
“Always there’s also the question of ‘is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?”"
I think it's more a sign of collective madness among the American elite. It's a kind of displacement activity because they are increasingly unsure about the future of global politics.
People love to blame faceless bureaucrats because they are, well, faceless. It's just easier. But it is not the case they are the elite.
Bureaucrats only have such authority or responsibility invested in them by representatives. For everyday people the bureaucrats are in charge, but MPs and Lords have the capability to set the rules on their own behaviour - they divested it to others because they'd proven they could not be trusted with it themselves. And they just reproved it. If they don't want to do training etc they can hold firm on that, I'd agree they should not feel forced to do it, but if they choose to give in to it that's their choice.
You haven't encountered those who believe themselves to be "in charge"?
My favourite was the couple who ran a charity. That lobbied various governments for funding, so that they could lobby various governments for funding. No actual third worlders were bothered in this cycle. They (the.... leaders of the charity) had a charming Georgian house with an In/Out gravel drive. Complete with two Range Rovers, with his'n'hers vanity plates..... All very symmetrical.....
They were so very clear that they were part of the great and the good.
I have encountered them (although that example is not of faceless bureaucrats). But ultimately those in power can trim the sails of bureaucrats if they wish, and if they find they cannot get support for that because no one trusts them (as Boris just found out), that speaks to a bigger problem than bureaucrats being too powerful.
Oh, they were in all the proper committees and cliques - I am quite sure that when charity law is re-written, they will be there to help.
I suggest you read some memoirs of Ministers (and their advisors) from various governments - attempting to change "institutional policy" is one of the hardest things to do.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
I was in the Cubs at the time, but also a choirboy. We learned Handel's anthem Zadok the Priest.
When the day comes, the whole world will ask "why are they playing the Champions League anthem?"
I expect I will cry. I'm a republican, in principle, though I don't feel strongly. But she's the sodding QUEEN, for God's sake. She's been there my whole life. She's been doing the same job, diligently, for 70 years. She's Britain personified. She'll be horribly missed.
That anthems going to need a bit of a rewrite, though, isn't it? Gracious? Noble? "Send him a few decent years until his more popular son with the charming wife takes over, and do let him stuff it up too much in the intervening period."
People love to blame faceless bureaucrats because they are, well, faceless. It's just easier. But it is not the case they are the elite.
Bureaucrats only have such authority or responsibility invested in them by representatives. For everyday people the bureaucrats are in charge, but MPs and Lords have the capability to set the rules on their own behaviour - they divested it to others because they'd proven they could not be trusted with it themselves. And they just reproved it. If they don't want to do training etc they can hold firm on that, I'd agree they should not feel forced to do it, but if they choose to give in to it that's their choice.
You haven't encountered those who believe themselves to be "in charge"?
My favourite was the couple who ran a charity. That lobbied various governments for funding, so that they could lobby various governments for funding. No actual third worlders were bothered in this cycle. They (the.... leaders of the charity) had a charming Georgian house with an In/Out gravel drive. Complete with two Range Rovers, with his'n'hers vanity plates..... All very symmetrical.....
They were so very clear that they were part of the great and the good.
I have encountered them (although that example is not of faceless bureaucrats). But ultimately those in power can trim the sails of bureaucrats if they wish, and if they find they cannot get support for that because no one trusts them (as Boris just found out), that speaks to a bigger problem than bureaucrats being too powerful.
Oh, they were in all the proper committees and cliques - I am quite sure that when charity law is re-written, they will be there to help.
I suggest you read some memoirs of Ministers (and their advisors) from various governments - attempting to change "institutional policy" is one of the hardest things to do.
I've seen Yes Minister, I know the idea is it is hard. But ranting about faceless bureaucrats is just laziness to explain not succeeding in making a change, or in the case of the Murray article, not seeking to make a change, since he only talks of a few objecting to these things.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
I was in the Cubs at the time, but also a choirboy. We learned Handel's anthem Zadok the Priest.
When the day comes, the whole world will ask "why are they playing the Champions League anthem?"
I expect I will cry. I'm a republican, in principle, though I don't feel strongly. But she's the sodding QUEEN, for God's sake. She's been there my whole life. She's been doing the same job, diligently, for 70 years. She's Britain personified. She'll be horribly missed.
That anthems going to need a bit of a rewrite, though, isn't it? Gracious? Noble? "Send him a few decent years until his more popular son with the charming wife takes over, and do let him stuff it up too much in the intervening period."
Fortunately the song is not generally taken literally. At least not for us athiests singing it.
Anyway, won't go down in the record books but to all intents and purposes that's a new record, winning from 25th on the grid despite the best efforts of the stewards.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
I was in the Cubs at the time, but also a choirboy. We learned Handel's anthem Zadok the Priest.
When the day comes, the whole world will ask "why are they playing the Champions League anthem?"
I expect I will cry. I'm a republican, in principle, though I don't feel strongly. But she's the sodding QUEEN, for God's sake. She's been there my whole life. She's been doing the same job, diligently, for 70 years. She's Britain personified. She'll be horribly missed.
That anthems going to need a bit of a rewrite, though, isn't it? Gracious? Noble? "Send him a few decent years until his more popular son with the charming wife takes over, and do let him stuff it up too much in the intervening period."
Fortunately the song is not generally taken literally. At least not for us athiests singing it.
It underlines though that being King is a plum job.
The Director of US National Intelligence has actually used the word "extra-terrestrial": as a possibility the US intel community is actively and seriously addressing
"Welcome to a brave new world that acknowledges the UFO reality…
Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence…
“Always there’s also the question of ‘is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?”"
I think it's more a sign of collective madness among the American elite. It's a kind of displacement activity because they are increasingly unsure about the future of global politics.
Yes, that's one of my two explanations for this weirdness
1. There really is Something Out There, and it is probably not human as we understand the term
2. The American Establishment has gone mad because of Covid, China, Trump, Woke, etc
50/50
BTW there was a very interesting comment from Jeff Bezos at this same pow-wow where Haines spoke. He was asked if he believed we are being visited, and he said "not by EXTRA SOLAR INTELLLIGENCES"
Which, if you are so minded, suggests that he might be open to the idea of non human terrestrial life, or parallel dimensions, or time travellers, or Jupiterians, as an explanation for UAP
Or it could be drones and AI SENT from extra-solar sources
I am enjoying this F1 title race, though it has been irritating on a few occasion when Hamilton's camp have pretended to throw in the towel with comments about how unlikely a comeback might be, when even now near the end it is pretty darn close.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Something can be an odd thing to do and still be done by large numbers of people as we saw with Diana. People getting ridiculously emotional about someone they don't know. That is odd even if done by many. It is utterly bonkers. It is mass hysteria.
I fit that age category you describe as do most of my friends. None are going to get soppy. I would be shocked if a young royal died, as in the case of Diana, but even then no more than that, because, damn it, I didn't know her. As far as the queen is concerned she is elderly so it is never going to be a shock. It is going to happen sometime in the near future.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
I was in the Cubs at the time, but also a choirboy. We learned Handel's anthem Zadok the Priest.
When the day comes, the whole world will ask "why are they playing the Champions League anthem?"
I expect I will cry. I'm a republican, in principle, though I don't feel strongly. But she's the sodding QUEEN, for God's sake. She's been there my whole life. She's been doing the same job, diligently, for 70 years. She's Britain personified. She'll be horribly missed.
That anthems going to need a bit of a rewrite, though, isn't it? Gracious? Noble? "Send him a few decent years until his more popular son with the charming wife takes over, and do let him stuff it up too much in the intervening period."
Webster was much possessed by death And saw the skull beneath the skin
She may be hanging on to the vestiges of charm now. She's going to look bloody fierce in 10 years time
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Something can be an odd thing to do and still be done by large numbers of people as we saw with Diana. People getting ridiculously emotional about someone they don't know. That is odd even if done by many. It is utterly bonkers. It is mass hysteria.
I fit that age category you describe as do most of my friends. None are going to get soppy. I would be shocked if a young royal died, as in the case of Diana, but even then no more than that, because, damn it, I didn't know her. As far as the queen is concerned she is elderly so it is never going to be a shock. It is going to happen sometime in the near future.
As I said get a grip and stop being a wimp.
lol. I'm not sitting here sobbing in expectation, I'm just observing that this will touch many many people
I have friends like you, almost certainly on the spectrum, who look at their emotional fellow humans with bewilderment. But these friends are the oddballs. I still love 'em dearly
Stewards non call ends up moot, but combined with the rear wing farce, seems pretty clear who they want to win this year (Understandable given the last 7).
Given the points lead, very hard to see Lewis getting a clean sweep from here on a tilted pitch.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
You seem to have forgotten the Vatican City, whose legislature is made up of Cardinals appointed by the Pope.
I think when comparing countries it is pretty reasonable not to think about Vatican City, which might well technically count, but is not exactly relevant for comparitive purposes for country statistics and much else. Administratively a comparison with an elective theocracy of circa 500 residents, less than a mid sized housing estate, is not going to be super useful.
Yet the Vatican city is not only a mini city state, it is also the effective capital of the Catholic Church and that has 1.3 billion members ie more than any nations apart from China and India
Does the Vatican legislature pass laws that affect those 1.3bn people directly , set taxes for them. Does it police arrest those 1.3bn and put them on trial if they transgress the laws set by that legislature?
I don't know the answer to that question, but given we're treating Vatican City as a country on a technicality, unless the answer is yes it is not a valid comparison to extend the reach of that legislature to catholics worldwide, if they are not under its rules.
The Pope and the Vatican sets the rules for Catholics on sexuality, abortion etc attitudes to poverty, even climate change.
Not all Catholics may listen but the Pope is their figurehead on those issues, arguably even more so than the legislators and Head of State of their own nation.
Catholicism is a global religion as much as say Sunni Islam is but even more so with the Pope as its head whereas leadership in Islam has no one clear figurehead much like evangelical churches don't either.
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
You seem to have forgotten the Vatican City, whose legislature is made up of Cardinals appointed by the Pope.
I think when comparing countries it is pretty reasonable not to think about Vatican City, which might well technically count, but is not exactly relevant for comparitive purposes for country statistics and much else. Administratively a comparison with an elective theocracy of circa 500 residents, less than a mid sized housing estate, is not going to be super useful.
Yet the Vatican city is not only a mini city state, it is also the effective capital of the Catholic Church and that has 1.3 billion members ie more than any nations apart from China and India
Does the Vatican legislature pass laws that affect those 1.3bn people directly , set taxes for them. Does it police arrest those 1.3bn and put them on trial if they transgress the laws set by that legislature?
I don't know the answer to that question, but given we're treating Vatican City as a country on a technicality, unless the answer is yes it is not a valid comparison to extend the reach of that legislature to catholics worldwide, if they are not under its rules.
The Pope sets the rules for Catholics on sexuality, abortion etc attitudes to poverty, even climate change.
Not all Catholics may listen but the Pope is their figurehead on those issues, arguably even more so than the legislators and Head of State of their own nation
Yes, but this was a debate about legislatures, and it would seem the Vatican legislature is not really usefully comparable to the HoL as it is seemingly much more limited even if the Pope is indeed personally and in his office significant.
Yes. Football is a sport that is rife with racism, mainly but not only amongst the fans, and sadly has a long and storied history with racism. This was essentially the first time this had happened. The FIA acted. It's not as if it's become standard behaviour in F1, has it?
To go to your footie comparison - despite all those bans, racism continues in and around stadiums.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
I was in the Cubs at the time, but also a choirboy. We learned Handel's anthem Zadok the Priest.
When the day comes, the whole world will ask "why are they playing the Champions League anthem?"
I expect I will cry. I'm a republican, in principle, though I don't feel strongly. But she's the sodding QUEEN, for God's sake. She's been there my whole life. She's been doing the same job, diligently, for 70 years. She's Britain personified. She'll be horribly missed.
That anthems going to need a bit of a rewrite, though, isn't it? Gracious? Noble? "Send him a few decent years until his more popular son with the charming wife takes over, and do let him stuff it up too much in the intervening period."
Fortunately the song is not generally taken literally. At least not for us athiests singing it.
It underlines though that being King is a plum job.
It exhorts us to send him Victorias.
I've had enough of this punning. This post constitutes notice to all PBers that if they persist in essays in paronomasia, I shall decline to en gage with them.
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
You seem to have forgotten the Vatican City, whose legislature is made up of Cardinals appointed by the Pope.
I think when comparing countries it is pretty reasonable not to think about Vatican City, which might well technically count, but is not exactly relevant for comparitive purposes for country statistics and much else. Administratively a comparison with an elective theocracy of circa 500 residents, less than a mid sized housing estate, is not going to be super useful.
Yet the Vatican city is not only a mini city state, it is also the effective capital of the Catholic Church and that has 1.3 billion members ie more than any nations apart from China and India
Does the Vatican legislature pass laws that affect those 1.3bn people directly , set taxes for them. Does it police arrest those 1.3bn and put them on trial if they transgress the laws set by that legislature?
I don't know the answer to that question, but given we're treating Vatican City as a country on a technicality, unless the answer is yes it is not a valid comparison to extend the reach of that legislature to catholics worldwide, if they are not under its rules.
The Pope sets the rules for Catholics on sexuality, abortion etc attitudes to poverty, even climate change.
Not all Catholics may listen but the Pope is their figurehead on those issues, arguably even more so than the legislators and Head of State of their own nation
Yes, but this was a debate about legislatures, and it would seem the Vatican legislature is not really usefully comparable to the HoL as it is seemingly much more limited even if the Pope is indeed personally and in his office significant.
Within the Vatican the Vatican legislature has more power than the House of Lords does, which is after all only a revising chamber which can be overruled by the Commons
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
What is this "Oxbridge"? England has universities in Oxford and London, so I don't understand the word.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Something can be an odd thing to do and still be done by large numbers of people as we saw with Diana. People getting ridiculously emotional about someone they don't know. That is odd even if done by many. It is utterly bonkers. It is mass hysteria.
I fit that age category you describe as do most of my friends. None are going to get soppy. I would be shocked if a young royal died, as in the case of Diana, but even then no more than that, because, damn it, I didn't know her. As far as the queen is concerned she is elderly so it is never going to be a shock. It is going to happen sometime in the near future.
As I said get a grip and stop being a wimp.
I agree with that. I actually don't know one person, in all my friends and family, who is remotely interested in the Royal family. Indeed, we all tend to be a bit irritated by the never-ending coverage of various royals in the media. We just don't care. Apart from one grandmother, I don't think I've ever come across an ardent royalist. Most people I've met are indifferent, rather than hostile.
Now, when Liz dies, I don't deny there'll be a fleeting moment of sadness because, as monarchs go, if you have to have one, she's done a good job. But she's seriously old, so it's not a big deal. Diana dying was a bit different, because she was cut off in her prime - it's always sadder when someone dies prematurely.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
Yes people are odd - so I think it is a bit strange to think it is nonsense that lots of people will cry and feel a lot when it happens.
People cry and leave tributes to people they've never heard of when there's a tragic road accidents or attack, they get upset at a celebrity they like dying, they express genuine feels of loss and sorry for the murder of an MP they'd never heard of, because of what the situation represents to them, and out of sympathy for those who will feel it most closely.
That's just human nature - plenty of people will not care at all, others may mark it as a noteworthy occasion with symnpathy for the family and friends, and others will feel it much more closely, irrespective of whether they logically should. People have always mourned heads of state and other significant figures and genuinely felt emotion at the events.
The idea it is odd for people to react so when they are not a close relative or friend is itself extremely odd, even if one does not share in it. Is that not part of the point of tribes and nations and creeds, that we feel something, even a little, for people we may never have even met based on some shared connection, in this case as nominal ruler.
I won't judge anyone who does not feel much emotion at the occasion - as a child I remember thinking the Di stuff was over the top - but what it isn't is odd for people to feel it.
I think it is very different when people die young or in an accident or violently or in a disaster. When that happens I am of course shocked. If I can I do something about it and provide support (the wife of a friend of mine committed suicide recently and I am) but we are talking about someone we don't personally know.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
What is this "Oxbridge"? England has universities in Oxford and London, so I don't understand the word.
There are two unis in Oxford. One with a world class, world famous history department, and one with an insufferably high opinion of itself due to having been founded in the Middle Ages.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
Not sure what evidence there is that multi-member constituencies facilitate buck passing.
In Republic of Ireland, they seem to have the opposite effect, with TDs effectively competing with their seat mates re: constituency services - including or rather especially with those of same party.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
What is this "Oxbridge"? England has universities in Oxford and London, so I don't understand the word.
There are two unis in Oxford. One with a world class, world famous history department, and one with an insufferably high opinion of itself due to having been founded in the Middle Ages.
Well, one or the other can claim to be the best university in the world in a place called Oxford. Cambridge, UK OTOH....
Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.
Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.
Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.
He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.
Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
Yes, I've never been entirely clear why she has not counted, especially since we officially date Charles II from 1649 despite not, in England at least, being recognised or having any power for a long time, and I'd presumed Henry II had probably stated she had officially been Queen (notwithstanding how the civil war had been brought to an end). Even if it was only 10 weeks as ydoethur says, crowned is crowned.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
What is this "Oxbridge"? England has universities in Oxford and London, so I don't understand the word.
I always just assumed that 'Oxbridge' was just the more modern name for 'Oxford' - i.e. where there was once a ford they've now built a bridge over it.
Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.
Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.
Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.
He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.
Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
Yes, I've never been entirely clear why she has not counted, especially since we officially date Charles II from 1649 despite not, in England at least, being recognised or having any power for a long time, and I'd presumed Henry II had probably stated she had officially been Queen (notwithstanding how the civil war had been brought to an end). Even if it was only 10 weeks as ydoethur says, crowned is crowned.
Nor I. Matilda's side won, after all.
Neither side won. They agreed a truce under the Treaty of Wallingford, where Stephen was acknowledged as rightful king but Henry was adopted as his lawful heir.
One of Hamilton’s best ever wins. And Max is really starting to piss me off.
Starting?
He's been pissing me off since circa 2017.
His dad was a slow driver with anger management issues.
Unfortunately Max is a quick driver with anger management issues and the powers that be seem to think they have to pander to the latter because of the former quality.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Something can be an odd thing to do and still be done by large numbers of people as we saw with Diana. People getting ridiculously emotional about someone they don't know. That is odd even if done by many. It is utterly bonkers. It is mass hysteria.
I fit that age category you describe as do most of my friends. None are going to get soppy. I would be shocked if a young royal died, as in the case of Diana, but even then no more than that, because, damn it, I didn't know her. As far as the queen is concerned she is elderly so it is never going to be a shock. It is going to happen sometime in the near future.
As I said get a grip and stop being a wimp.
I agree with that. I actually don't know one person, in all my friends and family, who is remotely interested in the Royal family. Indeed, we all tend to be a bit irritated by the never-ending coverage of various royals in the media. We just don't care. Apart from one grandmother, I don't think I've ever come across an ardent royalist. Most people I've met are indifferent, rather than hostile.
Now, when Liz dies, I don't deny there'll be a fleeting moment of sadness because, as monarchs go, if you have to have one, she's done a good job. But she's seriously old, so it's not a big deal. Diana dying was a bit different, because she was cut off in her prime - it's always sadder when someone dies prematurely.
Very well put. I agree with every single element of that.
Mr. Jessop, Austrians being authoritarian? Surely not.
Mr. Gate, vielleicht.
The Mercedes was notably faster today but engine drop-off is more severe. Perhaps more worryingly, Ricciardo's DNF was down to an engine failure. If that happens to Hamilton the title is almost certainly Verstappen's.
And so far as the cricket is concerned was the match really necessary? They could have stopped it after the toss.
Could make a case the weaker side won all 3 knock out matches driven by the toss advantage. Really disappointing and hopefully rather than pretending it's fine the ICC only host tournaments in places capable of staging them with balance in future.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
As far as being sad when people you don't actually know die, I think its called Empathy.
I was unimpressed when Diana died. As a friend said at the time, I was more upset when Freddie Mercury died. And if you will get into a car with a drugged-up and drunk driver..
However the Queen has been a constant in my life and I have always been impressed by her sense of duty, and her faith - although I don't share it myself. And I would rather owe allegiance to a person than a country, which is a legal fiction created by the Peace of Westphalia. So I will be a little sad.
I am with you 100% on the Diana vs Freddy. I was genuinely upset when he died as he and his music had been such a part of my life in a way Diana could never be. Diana dying didn't touch me at all and I rapidly became extremely pissed off with the 'national outpouring'.
Again like you the Queen has been a constant in my life and I think has been a force for stability and for good in the world unlike almost no other living person today. So there will be both a sadness and perhaps a sense of slight unnerving when she passes. The latter probably irrational and based on nothing more than a concern about 'change'.
I disagree fundamentally with your last point though. Any allegiance I feel to the person of the monarch only exists in so far as they are an embodiment of the country to which I feel some allegiance and gratitude. I am grateful to the Queen as a person for all she has done but my allegiance, in so far as it exists is, to England of which she is the figurehead.
And so far as the cricket is concerned was the match really necessary? They could have stopped it after the toss.
Could make a case the weaker side won all 3 knock out matches driven by the toss advantage. Really disappointing and hopefully rather than pretending it's fine the ICC only host tournaments in places capable of staging them with balance in future.
Day/night has never really worked for 20/20 cricket, for the obvious reasons. But they needed both a safe venue and a time to appeal to the Indian audience, who were the original hosts. No matter what they did, there was going to be criticism.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
What is this "Oxbridge"? England has universities in Oxford and London, so I don't understand the word.
I always just assumed that 'Oxbridge' was just the more modern name for 'Oxford' - i.e. where there was once a ford they've now built a bridge over it.
Definitely the best explanation I've seen for the word.
One of Hamilton’s best ever wins. And Max is really starting to piss me off.
Starting?
He's been pissing me off since circa 2017.
His dad was a slow driver with anger management issues.
Unfortunately Max is a quick driver with anger management issues and the powers that be seem to think they have to pander to the latter because of the former quality.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
Not sure what evidence there is that multi-member constituencies facilitate buck passing.
In Republic of Ireland, they seem to have the opposite effect, with TDs effectively competing with their seat mates re: constituency services - including or rather especially with those of same party.
Well they do it very effectively at local level so I see no reason to expect they will be any better at Parliamentary level.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
What is this "Oxbridge"? England has universities in Oxford and London, so I don't understand the word.
There are two unis in Oxford. One with a world class, world famous history department, and one with an insufferably high opinion of itself due to having been founded in the Middle Ages.
Well, one or the other can claim to be the best university in the world in a place called Oxford. Cambridge, UK OTOH....
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
Not sure what evidence there is that multi-member constituencies facilitate buck passing.
In Republic of Ireland, they seem to have the opposite effect, with TDs effectively competing with their seat mates re: constituency services - including or rather especially with those of same party.
Well they do it very effectively at local level so I see no reason to expect they will be any better at Parliamentary level.
Also no worse?
Real difference is that voter opinion is more fully reflected AND respected under STV.
OT once again. I did rather enjoy this interview with the Editor of Private Eye, young Mr Hislop. The first 30 seconds or so are clips from later in the interview so don't get riled about them out of context. I do think he would fit in rather well with the PB mindset.
Did they talk about him helping Andrew Wakefield spread his antivax bollocks?
No (at least not at the point I've gotten to), but he does bring up an argument which I've never really understood, about the discussion around toxic and vicious debate that arose in the wake of Sir David Amess's death, and he rather smirkingly dismissed it as 'not the place' for the true point that the killer in that instance does not appear to have been involved in or interested in debate of any kind.
I've never understood it because I don't see why there needed to be a one to one connection, and don't see what the problem is in a tragedy leading people to reflect upon a separate issue of political discourse in general. At the time it struck me as some commentators thinking to prove themselves clever and contrarian insuggesting people were missing the point of the tragedy, when I don't see why several debates cannot happen at once, and even those not directly connected can affect how people perceive the other.
Because what he is quite rightly saying is that too many politicians were using the tragedy as an excuse to drum up support for their own particular bit of authoritarian bollocks even when it was obvious it had nothing at all to do with what had happened.
I disagree. It is an unpleasant article, siding with the Patersons and seeking to denigrate Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as a 'faceless bureaucrat'; funny that - we know her name, and photos of her can easily be found, so she's not that faceless is she? She may not have been elected directly, but she was chosen by those who are elected to oversee aspect of their work.
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
The sneering at Stone's university was particularly unedifying. (Presumably Murray's Oxbridge.)
What is this "Oxbridge"? England has universities in Oxford and London, so I don't understand the word.
There are two unis in Oxford. One with a world class, world famous history department, and one with an insufferably high opinion of itself due to having been founded in the Middle Ages.
Well, one or the other can claim to be the best university in the world in a place called Oxford. Cambridge, UK OTOH....
The narcissism of small differences...
Yeah, Oxford and London are pretty much level pegging. Just bantz.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Something can be an odd thing to do and still be done by large numbers of people as we saw with Diana. People getting ridiculously emotional about someone they don't know. That is odd even if done by many. It is utterly bonkers. It is mass hysteria.
I fit that age category you describe as do most of my friends. None are going to get soppy. I would be shocked if a young royal died, as in the case of Diana, but even then no more than that, because, damn it, I didn't know her. As far as the queen is concerned she is elderly so it is never going to be a shock. It is going to happen sometime in the near future.
As I said get a grip and stop being a wimp.
lol. I'm not sitting here sobbing in expectation, I'm just observing that this will touch many many people
I have friends like you, almost certainly on the spectrum, who look at their emotional fellow humans with bewilderment. But these friends are the oddballs. I still love 'em dearly
Humanity needs all types. Kirk AND Spock
I think you might find there are quite a lot of us on your spectrum. You know those of us who only get sad when it is actually a friend or relative or when we hear of something shocking happening to a stranger.
Comments
The Director of US National Intelligence has actually used the word "extra-terrestrial": as a possibility the US intel community is actively and seriously addressing
"Welcome to a brave new world that acknowledges the UFO reality…
Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence…
“Always there’s also the question of ‘is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?”"
https://twitter.com/JeremyCorbell/status/1459028346935734273?s=20
What people think about when a famous person dies isn't principally the individual or the grieving family (they get mentioned, but I really don't think it's at the heart of it) but what the person meant to THEM and how their passing affects THEM.
That's not a bad thing particularly, but I'm not sure it's empathy in the true sense. I will probably feel similarly to you when the Queen goes, but it won't really be about sharing common feeling with grieving relatives of hers.
And I think the Princess Diana thing was different again. No doubt quite a lot of people were genuinely sad because she was a prominent figure for many years, a lot of people had followed her story, some people admired her, and many remembered the Royal Wedding as a big national event and there was some nostalgia there. But there was also a heck of a lot of hysteria magnifying all that - a lot of competitive emoting which seemed fairly distasteful to many of us at the time.
The FIA go can fuck themselves.
25 place penalty and his rival can drive him off the road at will. This is like WWE.
Indeed if it was not for the Reformation and the Church of England replacing the Roman Catholic church as the state church in England, we would likely not have bishops in the Lords now though we would have rather more cardinals in the Vatican city
Simply retreating in the face of problems with democracy to "Guardians"* is not increasing or improving democracy.
*And who will guard them?
Shoulda been England in there
I don't know the answer to that question, but given we're treating Vatican City as a country on a technicality, unless the answer is yes it is not a valid comparison to extend the reach of that legislature to catholics worldwide, if they are not under its rules.
They must introduce some counter-balancing handicap for the team batting 2nd, or they will murder T20
Murray should know that Stone was appointed by the House of Commons Commission, comprising ten people, including JRM, Charles Walker, and the Speaker.
So his article is pure nonsense, and will add to the unpleasantness that Stone is already facing.
I suggest you read some memoirs of Ministers (and their advisors) from various governments - attempting to change "institutional policy" is one of the hardest things to do.
P.s. Fuck you Max & the FIA
That anthems going to need a bit of a rewrite, though, isn't it? Gracious? Noble? "Send him a few decent years until his more popular son with the charming wife takes over, and do let him stuff it up too much in the intervening period."
It exhorts us to send him Victorias.
1. There really is Something Out There, and it is probably not human as we understand the term
2. The American Establishment has gone mad because of Covid, China, Trump, Woke, etc
50/50
BTW there was a very interesting comment from Jeff Bezos at this same pow-wow where Haines spoke. He was asked if he believed we are being visited, and he said "not by EXTRA SOLAR INTELLLIGENCES"
Which, if you are so minded, suggests that he might be open to the idea of non human terrestrial life, or parallel dimensions, or time travellers, or Jupiterians, as an explanation for UAP
Or it could be drones and AI SENT from extra-solar sources
I fit that age category you describe as do most of my friends. None are going to get soppy. I would be shocked if a young royal died, as in the case of Diana, but even then no more than that, because, damn it, I didn't know her. As far as the queen is concerned she is elderly so it is never going to be a shock. It is going to happen sometime in the near future.
As I said get a grip and stop being a wimp.
And saw the skull beneath the skin
She may be hanging on to the vestiges of charm now. She's going to look bloody fierce in 10 years time
I'm far from convinced the FIA were 'fine' with it. Ecclestone certainly wasn't.
I have friends like you, almost certainly on the spectrum, who look at their emotional fellow humans with bewilderment. But these friends are the oddballs. I still love 'em dearly
Humanity needs all types. Kirk AND Spock
Given the points lead, very hard to see Lewis getting a clean sweep from here on a tilted pitch.
Not all Catholics may listen but the Pope is their figurehead on those issues, arguably even more so than the legislators and Head of State of their own nation.
Catholicism is a global religion as much as say Sunni Islam is but even more so with the Pope as its head whereas leadership in Islam has no one clear figurehead much like evangelical churches don't either.
14 years and I don't know how many loaves but my bread maker has now died on me.
Mind, since I got it second hand for free at a jumble sale, I suppose I can't really complain.
You pull that trick in a football stadium you get a lifetime ban.
They should have taken the race away from Spain.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/05/sport.world
ETA ignore that. Qatar Grand Prix 21 November; SPotY 19 December (though shortlist weeks before?)
To go to your footie comparison - despite all those bans, racism continues in and around stadiums.
Now, when Liz dies, I don't deny there'll be a fleeting moment of sadness because, as monarchs go, if you have to have one, she's done a good job. But she's seriously old, so it's not a big deal. Diana dying was a bit different, because she was cut off in her prime - it's always sadder when someone dies prematurely.
He's been pissing me off since circa 2017.
Best result for keeping the championship alive, did I mention that I have tickets to the last race? 🏎
In Republic of Ireland, they seem to have the opposite effect, with TDs effectively competing with their seat mates re: constituency services - including or rather especially with those of same party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59283128
Unfortunately Max is a quick driver with anger management issues and the powers that be seem to think they have to pander to the latter because of the former quality.
Mr. Gate, vielleicht.
The Mercedes was notably faster today but engine drop-off is more severe. Perhaps more worryingly, Ricciardo's DNF was down to an engine failure. If that happens to Hamilton the title is almost certainly Verstappen's.
Again like you the Queen has been a constant in my life and I think has been a force for stability and for good in the world unlike almost no other living person today. So there will be both a sadness and perhaps a sense of slight unnerving when she passes. The latter probably irrational and based on nothing more than a concern about 'change'.
I disagree fundamentally with your last point though. Any allegiance I feel to the person of the monarch only exists in so far as they are an embodiment of the country to which I feel some allegiance and gratitude. I am grateful to the Queen as a person for all she has done but my allegiance, in so far as it exists is, to England of which she is the figurehead.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/verstappen-guilty-of-assault-but-walks-free-5055580/5055580/
and women:
https://www.auto123.com/en/news/former-f1-driver-jos-verstappen-faces-jail-over-wife-assault/4598/
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/verstappen-arrested-after-girlfriend-assault/415763/
I always worry when Max says his dad mentored him ...
Real difference is that voter opinion is more fully reflected AND respected under STV.
https://twitter.com/RCunningham_MMM/status/1459939369041674245?s=20