I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
At the moment vast amounts of fund raising for the greatest set of listed buildings in England happens by local support and effort. The C of E broadly raises enough to fund vicars, with many local variations of course, but needs greater assistance in providing as it does free access to thousands of Grade 1 and Grade 2* buildings for millions. Keeping the roof on comes expensive.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
Aimed at me?
That's the model I'm defending. I'm quite the historic building enthusiast - I grew up in a (4 bedroom ) listed Derbyshire Hall.
If it's a "historic buildings tax", that would be different from a "church tax".
But it is the case that our historic church buildings are in far better condition than they have ever been.
Agreeing with you. Thanks.
Because of the way societies develop not according to pre design but in an evolutionary way we have several strands. 1, the established church, 2 an amazing ecclesiastical building heritage, 3 the public expectation that the CoE is available for all comers (still massively strong in some parts) as and when they want it, 4 enthusiastic and diverse religious traditions.
Because of 2 and 3 the tax payer should support the buildings aspect. There is no public desire to let them fall down or to be told to go away when asking the established church for something. And there is a case for public support for established church ministers in run down places that can't fund them. The wealthy can and do fund the vicars. But the public do still expect them in Scunthorpe as well as South Kensington.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
I always remember his passing because it led to my favourite ever by-election, asto replace him it was one where only LD hereditary peers could vote, so there were 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters. VIscount Thurso got all 3, so was a rare example of someone in the Lords, then the Commons, then the Lords.
Next Lords by-election is next week to replace Lord Rotherwick.
The further we get from 1999 and the 'temporary' set up that persists to this day the funnier it gets. I've deliberately not looked into why some are elected only by the group, and some the whole house.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
All those middle-sized engineering firms that Germany has, often family run and owned by their banks; without all the short-term pressures that US and UK firms have, they are free to think long-term and become technical leaders in their field. I remember visiting a firm that made lifts near Düsseldorf during my MBA; the ethos of the company was nothing like a British firm. They made expensive lifts, but you knew they were the best.
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
Small, lightweight, simple, cheap. Doesn't sound like Arriflex.
If Meghan and her walking dildo start throwing mud at William and Kate, after the Queen's death, they're obviously going to come off worst. Meghan's approval rating is -19%, and Harry is at par. William and Kate are at +54%.
Not sure why the Firm’s current fuckup has sent you off on some rant about H&M.
Some are speculating they would have been good at advising on the recent trip.
Ah, I know the mere mention of them can trigger the bile gland of some folk.
Doesn't mince his words sometimes. Nations always have and always will make cold, ruthless choices, which may well be in the best interests of their people, or at least they will think so. But in this day and age people will interrogate such claims more strongly, as the emotional pleas will be much easier to be heard.
Zelensky doing what -in my dreams- should be the role of the President of Council and Commission.
There was one who used to do it in private.
The days of member states hiding their sovereign decisions and blaming Brussels may be coming to an end.
Idly sharing a dip into another life. I've been an urbanite forever, grew up in a (nice) tower block, comfortable in everything from shopping in Oxford Street to canvassing in Glasgow tenements. I had hay fever as a kid so associate the countryside with feeling rubbish. I go for a walk now and then because a friend asks me to.
And for various reasons I fill my life with multiple jobs - running the UK arm of the charity, translating, council Executive, chairing the CLP. I fit in relaxation (socialising, mostly, and some poker and computer games) from time to time, like someone planning a short trip to the shops. I'm quite happy, and never bored.
But convalescing from Covid, I thought I'd take a mug of tea and Follett's The Man from St Petersburg into the neglected garden. Sat for an hour in the sun. A beautiful butterfly hovered around me, then sat companionably on the garden table. I've nothing in particular to do all day, or tomorrow, and I'm signed off from work for a few days. I suppose this is what retirement is like? It's quite nice too.
When JK Rowling sat in that cafe all those years ago, there’s no way she could have known she’d one day be endorsed by Vladimir Putin. Never give up on your dreams.
Lots of people twisting themselves in knots to defend what I think is a fairly bad decision by the church court, which was made with laughable justifications.
"white muppets" wrong "everyone was at it" not everyone "we'd have to cancel a whole century" no we wouldn't
Just have a look at the case itself, and read the judgment itself.
My point is not to justify it because everyone was at it, quite the reverse. But it was a *national* enterprise, it is what we as a country fundamentally did. It therfore seems a bit pointless to pick off arbitrary individuals.
I still don’t understand why there isn’t a national monument to Britain’s part in slavery and the slave trade (though I have suspicions verging on certainties).
If by some accident of history and geography the UK had been responsible for the Holocaust, all the people who had stolen Jewish property and moved into houses vacated by deported Jews would have been financially compensated, the British Armed forces would have flip flopped to roaming Europe to prevent pogroms and been held up as a virtuous ideal, the Royals would be dispatched to patronise the denuded shtetls of the east, and instead of a huge memorial to the attempted extermination of a race in our capital city there would be a few blue plaques.
Hasn't happened with Germany. My wife's great grandparents were driven out of their home in Munich by the Nazis. A Nazi seized the (sizeable) house and all of the possessions, including sketches by Edvard Munch. Said Nazis descendants still live there and enjoy all possessions.
I may have expressed myself badly, I was suggesting in my little alternative history that as with British slave owners, the state would have compensated those who had to hand back stolen Jewish property after the war.
That sounds awful; if it doesn't invade the privacy of you and your wife can you name names - disinfectant of sunlight and all that? I'm aware that there are plenty of people that 'got away with it' post war but isn't that down to passivity and inaction rather than complicity of the German state (taking into account that there have been many twists and turns in what constitutes the post war German state)?
The lady in question was called Eva Mudocci, and was reasonably famous. She was an accomplished violinist, a lover of Edvard Munch, and appeared in a couple of his paintings.
As she had been said to have Jewish ancestry, she had to flee Germany.
As I understand it, attempts to reclaim the house (called Linden Villa) were unsuccessful due to the authorities claiming that it had been sold freely (for a tiny fraction of the price, which was never paid) and Eva had decided of her own volition to donate the contents (including sketches of herself by Munch).
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I wonder if they have a credible valuation for the brand from before it was completely destroyed that they can use as part of a claim.
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
P&O Cruises is a far longer established business than P&O Ferries. They’ll keep the brand and keep pointing out the difference. IF they were daft enough to change the brand they’d reverse takeover P&O into Princess, the much bigger line they ran in the US before the Carnival merger.
P&O might as well stand for Poison & Ordure for the reputation that it now has. The difference between P&O Cruises and P&O Ferries will be lost on many, and even for those who know the difference consciously, the subconscious association will still do massive damage.
This is a lost battle for P&O Cruises. The sooner they accept that the sooner they will be able to move on.
P&O is just a division of the US cruise giant Carnival; they keep the brand because it helps them segment the market and pitch at mid-market Brits and anglophone Americans, just as they keep Cunard for the top-market cruises. If the brand ceases to carry value, they can easily just rebrand or fold the operation into another part of their business.
P&O Cruises will be sailing long after P&O Ferries has ceased trading.
Interesting story on the front of the FT - P&O Ferries are in a fight with a pension regulator over the claimed value of some ferries they have put up as collateral for pension obligations - at many multiples of the value they recently disposed of some slightly older siblings for…
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
I always remember his passing because it led to my favourite ever by-election, asto replace him it was one where only LD hereditary peers could vote, so there were 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters. VIscount Thurso got all 3, so was a rare example of someone in the Lords, then the Commons, then the Lords.
Next Lords by-election is next week to replace Lord Rotherwick.
Candidature statements Ashcombe, L.Having been a regular attender of the ACP meetings, my longstanding interest in politics has been reinformed. With a civil engineering degree from Imperial College I have spent over 35 years in the insurance industry and am currently head of the Americas energy specialty at Marsh. This requires patient negotiation with multiple parties and cultures. I hope that I would be able to deploy this experience to the benefit of this House. Baillieu, L. On leaving the army (Coldstream Guards), I lived in Australia (17 years), Hong Kong (5 years), and Russia (23 years). My career has been in banking and finance. Based on my experience my focus groups are: • Armed Forces. • Commonwealth. • Foreign Relations. • Banking and Finance. • Health Care. In each of these areas I have relevant (even current) experience. In the Ukraine - Russia situation I understand the Russian mindset, and this could support a diplomatic response. Biddulph, L. I would be honoured to serve the House if chosen. Camrose, V. Aged 52, member of the Conservative Party and life long Conservative voter. I live and work in London and would commit to voting and attending as needed. I advise businesses of all sizes on how to work more productively and adapt to change. I work with new ventures as a founder and investor and would hope to bring my expertise and energy to enhancing the public recognition of the House of Lords. Ironside, L. It would be my intention to take a very active interest in the House of Lords if elected. Having spent 25 years in the Lloyd’s insurance market as a director of several successful companies, I have acquired plenty of experience in Big Business. For the last 20 years I have managed and run my own specialised business establishing it as a market leader in the field of classic Mercedes motor cars.
Idly sharing a dip into another life. I've been an urbanite forever, grew up in a (nice) tower block, comfortable in everything from shopping in Oxford Street to canvassing in Glasgow tenements. I had hay fever as a kid so associate the countryside with feeling rubbish. I go for a walk now and then because a friend asks me to.
And for various reasons I fill my life with multiple jobs - running the UK arm of the charity, translating, council Executive, chairing the CLP. I fit in relaxation (socialising, mostly, and some poker and computer games) from time to time, like someone planning a short trip to the shops. I'm quite happy, and never bored.
But convalescing from Covid, I thought I'd take a mug of tea and Follett's The Man from St Petersburg into the neglected garden. Sat for an hour in the sun. A beautiful butterfly hovered around me, then sat companionably on the garden table. I've nothing in particular to do all day, or tomorrow, and I'm signed off from work for a few days. I suppose this is what retirement is like? It's quite nice too.
If it were retirement, you’re supposed to be tidying the garden up a bit….
Idly sharing a dip into another life. I've been an urbanite forever, grew up in a (nice) tower block, comfortable in everything from shopping in Oxford Street to canvassing in Glasgow tenements. I had hay fever as a kid so associate the countryside with feeling rubbish. I go for a walk now and then because a friend asks me to.
And for various reasons I fill my life with multiple jobs - running the UK arm of the charity, translating, council Executive, chairing the CLP. I fit in relaxation (socialising, mostly, and some poker and computer games) from time to time, like someone planning a short trip to the shops. I'm quite happy, and never bored.
But convalescing from Covid, I thought I'd take a mug of tea and Follett's The Man from St Petersburg into the neglected garden. Sat for an hour in the sun. A beautiful butterfly hovered around me, then sat companionably on the garden table. I've nothing in particular to do all day, or tomorrow, and I'm signed off from work for a few days. I suppose this is what retirement is like? It's quite nice too.
That does sound lovely. And I'm glad to read that your shaking off the lurgy.
During the first lockdowns I'd walk to a local-ish park every day and sit for an hour just watching the world go by. Occurred to me it was the first time in many, many years I'd spent time in the same spot outdoors over an extended period. There was something deeply relaxing about watching the leaves on the trees change over the weeks and months, seeing different birds come and go, berries coming out.
I've somewhat fallen out of the habit. But now that the weather is picking up a bit I should really make the effort again. I sure it did me a world of good.
“Ukraine's defence ministry says another Russian general, Lt Gen Yakov Rezantsev, was killed in a strike near the southern city of Kherson…A western official said he was the seventh general to die in Ukraine, and the second Lieutenant General.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
I always remember his passing because it led to my favourite ever by-election, asto replace him it was one where only LD hereditary peers could vote, so there were 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters. VIscount Thurso got all 3, so was a rare example of someone in the Lords, then the Commons, then the Lords.
Next Lords by-election is next week to replace Lord Rotherwick.
Candidature statements Ashcombe, L.Having been a regular attender of the ACP meetings, my longstanding interest in politics has been reinformed. With a civil engineering degree from Imperial College I have spent over 35 years in the insurance industry and am currently head of the Americas energy specialty at Marsh. This requires patient negotiation with multiple parties and cultures. I hope that I would be able to deploy this experience to the benefit of this House. Baillieu, L. On leaving the army (Coldstream Guards), I lived in Australia (17 years), Hong Kong (5 years), and Russia (23 years). My career has been in banking and finance. Based on my experience my focus groups are: • Armed Forces. • Commonwealth. • Foreign Relations. • Banking and Finance. • Health Care. In each of these areas I have relevant (even current) experience. In the Ukraine - Russia situation I understand the Russian mindset, and this could support a diplomatic response. Biddulph, L. I would be honoured to serve the House if chosen. Camrose, V. Aged 52, member of the Conservative Party and life long Conservative voter. I live and work in London and would commit to voting and attending as needed. I advise businesses of all sizes on how to work more productively and adapt to change. I work with new ventures as a founder and investor and would hope to bring my expertise and energy to enhancing the public recognition of the House of Lords. Ironside, L. It would be my intention to take a very active interest in the House of Lords if elected. Having spent 25 years in the Lloyd’s insurance market as a director of several successful companies, I have acquired plenty of experience in Big Business. For the last 20 years I have managed and run my own specialised business establishing it as a market leader in the field of classic Mercedes motor cars.
Aha. A Cayzer.
>And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
>Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
That's a narrow definition of Church Membership, and that is a matter for the church.
And it should be a matter for the Church whether they wish to give that right to all parishioners.
The BHA turn somersaults to pretend they represent agnostics as well as humanists, and any "are you a humanist" survey I have ever seen could be signed up to by any vicar I have ever met.
IMO the underlying issue here is that Church of England Vicars are legally Registrars who marry people in law as well as in the church, unlike some other denominations.
Cameron should have split off the Govt-recognised marriage registration (which mainly relates to taxes) from religious (or humanist, say) marriage when he did same-sex marriage, but he was in too much of a hurry to do it in a properly thought-through way.
Idly sharing a dip into another life. I've been an urbanite forever, grew up in a (nice) tower block, comfortable in everything from shopping in Oxford Street to canvassing in Glasgow tenements. I had hay fever as a kid so associate the countryside with feeling rubbish. I go for a walk now and then because a friend asks me to.
And for various reasons I fill my life with multiple jobs - running the UK arm of the charity, translating, council Executive, chairing the CLP. I fit in relaxation (socialising, mostly, and some poker and computer games) from time to time, like someone planning a short trip to the shops. I'm quite happy, and never bored.
But convalescing from Covid, I thought I'd take a mug of tea and Follett's The Man from St Petersburg into the neglected garden. Sat for an hour in the sun. A beautiful butterfly hovered around me, then sat companionably on the garden table. I've nothing in particular to do all day, or tomorrow, and I'm signed off from work for a few days. I suppose this is what retirement is like? It's quite nice too.
If it were retirement, you’re supposed to be tidying the garden up a bit….
(when you are recovered, obvs)
Bollocks to that . But I wonder, reading @ohnotnow's response, if a significamnt number of people have been encouraged by lockdown to reconsider their livestyles.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
On their performance in Ukraine, any war Russia launched against Poland would be the most one-sided brutal hammering of a larger enemy by a theoretically smaller one since Israel handed the entirety of the Arab World their arses in the Six Day War.
Erm, don't they have to get through Ukr to attack Poland?
How's that going again?
Belarus. And I am sure they have troops in Kaliningrad (not that the ones in Transdnistria seem to have been used to attack Ukraine).
It seems that the Russian troop numbers in Transnistria, have dwindled to 1,400 - 1,500. I had assumed that the Russians would have boosted that pre-invasion, but there does not seem to be any evidence for that.
That does sound lovely. And I'm glad to read that your shaking off the lurgy.
During the first lockdowns I'd walk to a local-ish park every day and sit for an hour just watching the world go by. Occurred to me it was the first time in many, many years I'd spent time in the same spot outdoors over an extended period. There was something deeply relaxing about watching the leaves on the trees change over the weeks and months, seeing different birds come and go, berries coming out.
I've somewhat fallen out of the habit. But now that the weather is picking up a bit I should really make the effort again. I sure it did me a world of good.
Mines floating in the Bosphorus with Turkish authorities cleaning up anchorages and shipping lanes, and reports of SAM missiles fired/intercepting Ukrainian targets over Sebastopol
“Ukraine's defence ministry says another Russian general, Lt Gen Yakov Rezantsev, was killed in a strike near the southern city of Kherson…A western official said he was the seventh general to die in Ukraine, and the second Lieutenant General.
Mines floating in the Bosphorus with Turkish authorities cleaning up anchorages and shipping lanes, and reports of SAM missiles fired/intercepting Ukrainian targets over Sebastopol
Ukrainians over Sebastopol!
sounds like the Ukrainians might be after the Russian Fleet.
however could also be: a) Russians calming Sebastopol is under attack to wipe up anti Ukrainian feeling in Crimea, or b) Jumpy Russians firing at a flock of birds, or similar.
I would be interested to see more on that, where did you see it reported?
Mines floating in the Bosphorus with Turkish authorities cleaning up anchorages and shipping lanes, and reports of SAM missiles fired/intercepting Ukrainian targets over Sebastopol
If Meghan and her walking dildo start throwing mud at William and Kate, after the Queen's death, they're obviously going to come off worst. Meghan's approval rating is -19%, and Harry is at par. William and Kate are at +54%.
Not sure why the Firm’s current fuckup has sent you off on some rant about H&M.
Some are speculating they would have been good at advising on the recent trip.
Ah, I know the mere mention of them can trigger the bile gland of some folk.
Mines floating in the Bosphorus with Turkish authorities cleaning up anchorages and shipping lanes, and reports of SAM missiles fired/intercepting Ukrainian targets over Sebastopol
Ukrainians over Sebastopol!
sounds like the Ukrainians might be after the Russian Fleet.
however could also be: a) Russians calming Sebastopol is under attack to wipe up anti Ukrainian feeling in Crimea, or b) Jumpy Russians firing at a flock of birds, or similar.
I would be interested to see more on that, where did you see it reported?
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
Small, lightweight, simple, cheap. Doesn't sound like Arriflex.
The 'cheap' obviously not! But their heads cameras lenses are beautifully made. The Mercedes-Benz of cameras! Everything is where you'd want it to be. Outside of Germany companies are using Arri gear that's fifty and sixty years old. Still working perfectly.The joy of working in Germany is you get the very latest including some incredible bits that no one else has thought of
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
At the moment vast amounts of fund raising for the greatest set of listed buildings in England happens by local support and effort. The C of E broadly raises enough to fund vicars, with many local variations of course, but needs greater assistance in providing as it does free access to thousands of Grade 1 and Grade 2* buildings for millions. Keeping the roof on comes expensive.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
Aimed at me?
That's the model I'm defending. I'm quite the historic building enthusiast - I grew up in a (4 bedroom ) listed Derbyshire Hall.
If it's a "historic buildings tax", that would be different from a "church tax".
But it is the case that our historic church buildings are in far better condition than they have ever been.
Agreeing with you. Thanks.
Because of the way societies develop not according to pre design but in an evolutionary way we have several strands. 1, the established church, 2 an amazing ecclesiastical building heritage, 3 the public expectation that the CoE is available for all comers (still massively strong in some parts) as and when they want it, 4 enthusiastic and diverse religious traditions.
Because of 2 and 3 the tax payer should support the buildings aspect. There is no public desire to let them fall down or to be told to go away when asking the established church for something. And there is a case for public support for established church ministers in run down places that can't fund them. The wealthy can and do fund the vicars. But the public do still expect them in Scunthorpe as well as South Kensington.
Interesting perspective. But it falls down on the issue of: why should the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish taxpayer pay a C of E priest's salary? Which in turn is easily dealt with: the BArnett formula.
But also we have people to hatch, match and despatch already. Paid for by the state. Called 'registrars'.
So this amounts to religious (and, in some ways, de facto though not intentional racial) bias in public services, which is ...
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
At the moment vast amounts of fund raising for the greatest set of listed buildings in England happens by local support and effort. The C of E broadly raises enough to fund vicars, with many local variations of course, but needs greater assistance in providing as it does free access to thousands of Grade 1 and Grade 2* buildings for millions. Keeping the roof on comes expensive.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
Aimed at me?
That's the model I'm defending. I'm quite the historic building enthusiast - I grew up in a (4 bedroom ) listed Derbyshire Hall.
If it's a "historic buildings tax", that would be different from a "church tax".
But it is the case that our historic church buildings are in far better condition than they have ever been.
Agreeing with you. Thanks.
Because of the way societies develop not according to pre design but in an evolutionary way we have several strands. 1, the established church, 2 an amazing ecclesiastical building heritage, 3 the public expectation that the CoE is available for all comers (still massively strong in some parts) as and when they want it, 4 enthusiastic and diverse religious traditions.
Because of 2 and 3 the tax payer should support the buildings aspect. There is no public desire to let them fall down or to be told to go away when asking the established church for something. And there is a case for public support for established church ministers in run down places that can't fund them. The wealthy can and do fund the vicars. But the public do still expect them in Scunthorpe as well as South Kensington.
Interesting perspective. But it falls down on the issue of: why should the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish taxpayer pay a C of E priest's salary? Which in turn is easily dealt with: the BArnett formula.
But also we have people to hatch, match and despatch already. Paid for by the state. Called 'registrars'.
So this amounts to religious (and, in some ways, de facto though not intentional racial) bias in public services, which is ...
A good reason for why, though there is a case, it isn't going to happen. However it is still the fact that the CoE is expected to provide a National Religion Service with a bit of public help to keep the roof on the listed bits, and no help at all with wage costs.
The entire population has rights with regard to the CoE, but no duties of any sort. Obviously lots of people want to abolish it, but millions of people simply assume that's the way it is and that's OK. It still has to be paid for. I think the people of Scunthorpe are as important as the posh bits who can pay for it easily.
Mines floating in the Bosphorus with Turkish authorities cleaning up anchorages and shipping lanes, and reports of SAM missiles fired/intercepting Ukrainian targets over Sebastopol
Ukrainians over Sebastopol!
sounds like the Ukrainians might be after the Russian Fleet.
however could also be: a) Russians calming Sebastopol is under attack to wipe up anti Ukrainian feeling in Crimea, or b) Jumpy Russians firing at a flock of birds, or similar.
I would be interested to see more on that, where did you see it reported?
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
Small, lightweight, simple, cheap. Doesn't sound like Arriflex.
The 'cheap' obviously not! But their heads cameras lenses are beautifully made. The Mercedes-Benz of cameras! Everything is where you'd want it to be. Outside of Germany companies are using Arri gear that's fifty and sixty years old. Still working perfectly.The joy of working in Germany is you get the very latest including some incredible bits that no one else has thought of
Oh, and disposable after shooting. Definitely not Arri, either.
People who are caught by fiscal drag are getting a pay rise
They may get to keep less that they expect, but the number on the bottom of the pay slip is going up
But if their pay rise is only matching inflation, then the increased tax take from fiscal drag means that their post-tax pay is declining in real-terms.
For an inflation rate of 6%, the effect of fiscal drag is that someone currently earning at the higher rate of tax threshold (£50,271) needs a pay increase of 8.5% to maintain their real post-tax income at the same level in real terms.
People complained about Gordon Brown using fiscal drag to stealthily raise taxes, but he did so at a time when the rate of inflation was low. With the rate of inflation now much higher, the effect of fiscal drag is also much higher. It represents a massive increase in taxation.
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
Small, lightweight, simple, cheap. Doesn't sound like Arriflex.
The 'cheap' obviously not! But their heads cameras lenses are beautifully made. The Mercedes-Benz of cameras! Everything is where you'd want it to be. Outside of Germany companies are using Arri gear that's fifty and sixty years old. Still working perfectly.The joy of working in Germany is you get the very latest including some incredible bits that no one else has thought of
Some of the German Zeiss lenses from the 1950s are incredible. A whole load of other mid-sized companies, in the typical cottage-industry precision genius the germans had, and still have, too, from the same period of the 1950s to the 70s - Schacht, Voigtlander, obviously Leica.
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
There were shops in Moscow that didn't accept Roubles, only hard (western) currency, or at least there were in 1986 when I was there.
Indeed. IIRC the way it worked was that you had to get roubles converted to vouchers by the state (if you were a Soviet Citizen). If you were an ordinary citizen, you got a certain rate. And quality was extremely limited. If you were a high official, you got another rate and limited amounts could be converted.
Brilliant detail in the Economist’s coverage of THAT rally in Moscow
Putin was, apparently, wearing a ‘Lora Piano’ coat, made in Italy. Price: $14,000
Tommy Hilfiger gilet, go fuck yourself.
When I watched that rally, I actually remember thinking, omg Putin is now a full on Fascist leader…. but that really is quite a nice coat. Worked well with the rollneck jumper, too
Which leaves the really important question a begging, what shoes? I'm guessing Gucci or perhaps Ferragamo.
Prada.
The Devil wears Prada.
I have done a quick bit of research and Vlad apparently goes for Ferragamo (kudos to me) and John Lobb. His suits are Brioni (which just to aftertime I would have gone for) and a shadowy tailor to the Kremlin called Tigorico; the latter charge c.$5000 per suit.
Divvie, PB style correspondent with his finger on the sartorial pulse of depraved tyrants.
He use same tailor as use TUD, sounds like you are a bit of a dapper dandy.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
There were shops in Moscow that didn't accept Roubles, only hard (western) currency, or at least there were in 1986 when I was there.
Indeed. IIRC the way it worked was that you had to get roubles converted to vouchers by the state (if you were a Soviet Citizen). If you were an ordinary citizen, you got a certain rate. And quality was extremely limited. If you were a high official, you got another rate and limited amounts could be converted.
The "official" rate made the rouble worth more than the pound: in practice you could get about five roubles to the pound. We we also told we couldn't take any roubles out of the country.
Had a similar experience in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 1985. The waiters etc wanted tips in Western currency.
Been reading through while waiting for Mrs C to have an Outpatient procedure. Satisfactory, I’m glad to say; one more in three months and she’ll be discharged.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
I remember seeing somewhere that the LFT doesn’t turn positive until at least day four. Although symptoms don’t arrive on day one either, obvs.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
Spending an intimate time with covid myself. Y experience sounds similar, totally knackered with sweats. Took three days to go +ve. The trick is to really shove the cue tip up your nose.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
I always remember his passing because it led to my favourite ever by-election, asto replace him it was one where only LD hereditary peers could vote, so there were 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters. VIscount Thurso got all 3, so was a rare example of someone in the Lords, then the Commons, then the Lords.
Next Lords by-election is next week to replace Lord Rotherwick.
Candidature statements Ashcombe, L.Having been a regular attender of the ACP meetings, my longstanding interest in politics has been reinformed. With a civil engineering degree from Imperial College I have spent over 35 years in the insurance industry and am currently head of the Americas energy specialty at Marsh. This requires patient negotiation with multiple parties and cultures. I hope that I would be able to deploy this experience to the benefit of this House. Baillieu, L. On leaving the army (Coldstream Guards), I lived in Australia (17 years), Hong Kong (5 years), and Russia (23 years). My career has been in banking and finance. Based on my experience my focus groups are: • Armed Forces. • Commonwealth. • Foreign Relations. • Banking and Finance. • Health Care. In each of these areas I have relevant (even current) experience. In the Ukraine - Russia situation I understand the Russian mindset, and this could support a diplomatic response. Biddulph, L. I would be honoured to serve the House if chosen. Camrose, V. Aged 52, member of the Conservative Party and life long Conservative voter. I live and work in London and would commit to voting and attending as needed. I advise businesses of all sizes on how to work more productively and adapt to change. I work with new ventures as a founder and investor and would hope to bring my expertise and energy to enhancing the public recognition of the House of Lords. Ironside, L. It would be my intention to take a very active interest in the House of Lords if elected. Having spent 25 years in the Lloyd’s insurance market as a director of several successful companies, I have acquired plenty of experience in Big Business. For the last 20 years I have managed and run my own specialised business establishing it as a market leader in the field of classic Mercedes motor cars.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
Someone suggested the other day that you can get quite a lot of symptoms if your immune system swings into gear, and that can keep the level of infection below the threshold where it would be picked up by an LFT.
Anecdotally, my brother-in-law had symptoms for a few days, tested negative, but then subsequently tested positive, so perhaps the initial symptoms were his initial immune system response, which the virus eventually managed to overwhelm sufficiently for him to test positive on an LFT.
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
At the moment vast amounts of fund raising for the greatest set of listed buildings in England happens by local support and effort. The C of E broadly raises enough to fund vicars, with many local variations of course, but needs greater assistance in providing as it does free access to thousands of Grade 1 and Grade 2* buildings for millions. Keeping the roof on comes expensive.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
Aimed at me?
That's the model I'm defending. I'm quite the historic building enthusiast - I grew up in a (4 bedroom ) listed Derbyshire Hall.
If it's a "historic buildings tax", that would be different from a "church tax".
But it is the case that our historic church buildings are in far better condition than they have ever been.
Agreeing with you. Thanks.
Because of the way societies develop not according to pre design but in an evolutionary way we have several strands. 1, the established church, 2 an amazing ecclesiastical building heritage, 3 the public expectation that the CoE is available for all comers (still massively strong in some parts) as and when they want it, 4 enthusiastic and diverse religious traditions.
Because of 2 and 3 the tax payer should support the buildings aspect. There is no public desire to let them fall down or to be told to go away when asking the established church for something. And there is a case for public support for established church ministers in run down places that can't fund them. The wealthy can and do fund the vicars. But the public do still expect them in Scunthorpe as well as South Kensington.
Interesting perspective. But it falls down on the issue of: why should the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish taxpayer pay a C of E priest's salary? Which in turn is easily dealt with: the BArnett formula.
But also we have people to hatch, match and despatch already. Paid for by the state. Called 'registrars'.
So this amounts to religious (and, in some ways, de facto though not intentional racial) bias in public services, which is ...
A good reason for why, though there is a case, it isn't going to happen. However it is still the fact that the CoE is expected to provide a National Religion Service with a bit of public help to keep the roof on the listed bits, and no help at all with wage costs.
The entire population has rights with regard to the CoE, but no duties of any sort. Obviously lots of people want to abolish it, but millions of people simply assume that's the way it is and that's OK. It still has to be paid for. I think the people of Scunthorpe are as important as the posh bits who can pay for it easily.
Does the population actually have rights? Even in England (the C of E bit seems a giveaway). Just checking ...
I have no problem at all with supporting the old buildings and so on.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
As I understand it, yes. It's the flipside of the invisible damage issue that some people had back before the vaccines.
Virus stages:
- Virus gets into you. Very low level, you are not infectious yet. PCR goes positive at some point between here and the third stage - Virus starts eating its way into your cells, taking them over to reproduce itself (kind of like a very mini Alien) - Viral load increases, you become infectious, LFT goes positive
The immune system is what gives you symptoms as it swings into gear. If it doesn't recognise the thing (due to being immune-naive) and reacts slowly, the virus can get chewing away at you and spreading silently for quite a while. This is where an oximeter can come in handy, as it registers the loss of lung capacity.
If the immune system recognises the thing really quickly (vaccinated, boosted, strong immune system, low initial viral load), it can get traction very early. Symptoms kick in as it goes and this can be before the virus has chomped away enough to spread sufficiently to be discernibly infectious to others (so no positive LFT). Sometimes it'll get infectious enough before being swept up (so you'll still get a positive LFT in time - just a couple or three or four days after symptoms begin). On occasion, the immune system will hold it down so well that it never spreads enough to become infectious and you have covid and recover without ever triggering an LFT.
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
On their performance in Ukraine, any war Russia launched against Poland would be the most one-sided brutal hammering of a larger enemy by a theoretically smaller one since Israel handed the entirety of the Arab World their arses in the Six Day War.
Erm, don't they have to get through Ukr to attack Poland?
How's that going again?
Belarus. And I am sure they have troops in Kaliningrad (not that the ones in Transdnistria seem to have been used to attack Ukraine).
It seems that the Russian troop numbers in Transnistria, have dwindled to 1,400 - 1,500. I had assumed that the Russians would have boosted that pre-invasion, but there does not seem to be any evidence for that.
They don't seem able to organize a military operation on 3/4 fronts within Ukraine. And 75% of their total military capability is involved in that operation. How would they open 3-5 additional operations with only 25% of their forces available?
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
Spending an intimate time with covid myself. Y experience sounds similar, totally knackered with sweats. Took three days to go +ve. The trick is to really shove the cue tip up your nose.
Good luck to your friends. Covid is not nice.
That does sound exactly like his experience. I’ll give him the nose advice.
For various reasons he is also at peak immunity. Boostered about five weeks ago. Perhaps that might also produce negative tests?
On the subject of casualties in the war I just noticed this:
According to the Donetsk PR, That's on of the 2 self declared independent republics fighting alongside Russia: there casualties reported on 17 March: 349 soldiers killed, 1,930 wounded.
To me this seems credible, with a less sophisticated PR department and there men fighting closer to home its probably harder to hide the losses, and the KIA and wended ratio sounds credible at nearly 5 to 1. its 9 days ago so it will have gone up since then, and its worth noting that up to that point Donetsk had been less active than many other areas, both the movement of the front and behind the Front. even so Donetsk clamed to have an army of 20,000 before the war, therefor that would be 21.4% of there starting manpower, in 3 weeks.
Anybody else this this might be the first credible self reputed casualty number so far?
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
As I understand it, yes. It's the flipside of the invisible damage issue that some people had back before the vaccines.
Virus stages:
- Virus gets into you. Very low level, you are not infectious yet. PCR goes positive at some point between here and the third stage - Virus starts eating its way into your cells, taking them over to reproduce itself (kind of like a very mini Alien) - Viral load increases, you become infectious, LFT goes positive
The immune system is what gives you symptoms as it swings into gear. If it doesn't recognise the thing (due to being immune-naive) and reacts slowly, the virus can get chewing away at you and spreading silently for quite a while. This is where an oximeter can come in handy, as it registers the loss of lung capacity.
If the immune system recognises the thing really quickly (vaccinated, boosted, strong immune system, low initial viral load), it can get traction very early. Symptoms kick in as it goes and this can be before the virus has chomped away enough to spread sufficiently to be discernibly infectious to others (so no positive LFT). Sometimes it'll get infectious enough before being swept up (so you'll still get a positive LFT in time - just a couple or three or four days after symptoms begin). On occasion, the immune system will hold it down so well that it never spreads enough to become infectious and you have covid and recover without ever triggering an LFT.
As authoritative as ever. PB is great for this kind of thing. Thanks!
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
A relative of mine currently has COVID, has been one of those test-acholic, always taking the damn things every day. Started feeling ill a week ago, doing their usual LFT routine, 3 days in a row after symptoms all negative (and of course all negative before feeling ill). Has an upcoming medical procedure so had to go and get a PCR, was positive.
Mr. B, aye, as did Leclerc and Sainz both in second practice.
Heroically, I've split a single stake equally between Sainz each way at 9 and Perez each way at 15 to be fastest qualifier (third the odds top 2). I'll post the waffle soonish.
On the subject of casualties in the war I just noticed this:
According to the Donetsk PR, That's on of the 2 self declared independent republics fighting alongside Russia: there casualties reported on 17 March: 349 soldiers killed, 1,930 wounded.
To me this seems credible, with a less sophisticated PR department and there men fighting closer to home its probably harder to hide the losses, and the KIA and wended ratio sounds credible at nearly 5 to 1. its 9 days ago so it will have gone up since then, and its worth noting that up to that point Donetsk had been less active than many other areas, both the movement of the front and behind the Front. even so Donetsk clamed to have an army of 20,000 before the war, therefor that would be 21.4% of there starting manpower, in 3 weeks.
Anybody else this this might be the first credible self reputed casualty number so far?
I think there's been a lot of activity on that front, it just hasn't resulted in much movement. I also thought that the DNR forces were involved in the fighting in Mariupol (it is in the Donetsk Oblast after all), so quite possible that their casualty figures are also an underestimate.
On the twitters that collate photos of vehicles destroyed and captured it does seem as though most of the Ukrainian vehicles captured/destroyed have been attacked by the DNR - which is another sign of an active front, but perhaps if they've done relatively well they won't have suffered terrible losses.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
A relative of mine currently has COVID, has been one of those test-acholic, always taking the damn things every day. Started feeling ill a week ago, doing their usual LFT routine, 3 days in a row after symptoms all negative (and of course all negative before feeling ill). Has an upcoming medical procedure so had to go and get a PCR, was positive.
To add my own anecdote: I felt rubbish for three days (enough to be off school) while testing negative on LFT. I then felt better and was preparing to go back to school, thought I ought to do a test, and it came back positive. I then tested positive for the next six days despite feeling fine.
F1: as mentioned, backed (with one stake split evenly) Perez at 15 each way and Sainz at 9 each way (third the odds top 2) to be fastest qualifier.
It seems like a definite top four but with narrow barriers, traffic potentially being a problem, and gusting wind it'd be very easy for Leclerc or Verstappen to make an error or get unlucky.
Flight back from Mexico, BA's advice was a bit confused on masks. They announced that people should wear them but then some enterprising woman brought up BA's own website and showed them the rule that if you're travelling to a country that doesn't have a mask mandate on public transport you don't need to wear them so a second announcement was made that masks were merely recommended and not mandatory. It made a huge difference to the flight experience, I was actually able to sleep.
On the subject of casualties in the war I just noticed this:
According to the Donetsk PR, That's on of the 2 self declared independent republics fighting alongside Russia: there casualties reported on 17 March: 349 soldiers killed, 1,930 wounded.
To me this seems credible, with a less sophisticated PR department and there men fighting closer to home its probably harder to hide the losses, and the KIA and wended ratio sounds credible at nearly 5 to 1. its 9 days ago so it will have gone up since then, and its worth noting that up to that point Donetsk had been less active than many other areas, both the movement of the front and behind the Front. even so Donetsk clamed to have an army of 20,000 before the war, therefor that would be 21.4% of there starting manpower, in 3 weeks.
Anybody else this this might be the first credible self reputed casualty number so far?
I think there's been a lot of activity on that front, it just hasn't resulted in much movement. I also thought that the DNR forces were involved in the fighting in Mariupol (it is in the Donetsk Oblast after all), so quite possible that their casualty figures are also an underestimate.
On the twitters that collate photos of vehicles destroyed and captured it does seem as though most of the Ukrainian vehicles captured/destroyed have been attacked by the DNR - which is another sign of an active front, but perhaps if they've done relatively well they won't have suffered terrible losses.
Yes all good points, although, I don't think they had properly entered Mariupol on by 17th.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
As I understand it, yes. It's the flipside of the invisible damage issue that some people had back before the vaccines.
Virus stages:
- Virus gets into you. Very low level, you are not infectious yet. PCR goes positive at some point between here and the third stage - Virus starts eating its way into your cells, taking them over to reproduce itself (kind of like a very mini Alien) - Viral load increases, you become infectious, LFT goes positive
The immune system is what gives you symptoms as it swings into gear. If it doesn't recognise the thing (due to being immune-naive) and reacts slowly, the virus can get chewing away at you and spreading silently for quite a while. This is where an oximeter can come in handy, as it registers the loss of lung capacity.
If the immune system recognises the thing really quickly (vaccinated, boosted, strong immune system, low initial viral load), it can get traction very early. Symptoms kick in as it goes and this can be before the virus has chomped away enough to spread sufficiently to be discernibly infectious to others (so no positive LFT). Sometimes it'll get infectious enough before being swept up (so you'll still get a positive LFT in time - just a couple or three or four days after symptoms begin). On occasion, the immune system will hold it down so well that it never spreads enough to become infectious and you have covid and recover without ever triggering an LFT.
Symptoms don't just come from the immune system's response - although many do. The virus also hijacks the cell's apparatus to produce a number of proteins, some of which do damage to the body, which damage also produces symptoms. If this were not the case, immune deficient people would have nothing to fear from the virus.
There lives a man in Russia as we speak He is short and bald, and his torso oh so sleek Asked if they love him his subjects say of course And especially when they see him on a horse
He bangs on and on about the weak west Full of piss and wind Thoughts he harbours, of its bloody conquest All that woke shit binned
Mad bad Vlad Putin No more trannies is the dream He is a cat that really has gone Mad bad Vlad Putin With his Russian war machine Until it’s done, he’ll just carry on
Things get rather messy very quick Sheets of fire rain down and the world is feeling sick Vlad’s ok though, he really doesn’t care Cos he’s safe as houses in his Moscow lair
For his sins he pays a price of zero He still thinks it’s cool In his mind’s eye he’s a Soviet hero To be taught in school
Mad bad Vlad Putin No more voting is his dream He is a cat that really has gone Mad bad Vlad Putin With his Russian war machine Until it’s done, he’ll just carry on
But when his ranting and raving And his designer wardrobe Become known to more and more people The demands to do something About this outrageous man Become louder and louder
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey …
Vlad’s just got to go, declared the spooked west If we don’t get rid he’ll become an awful pest How should we do it? Macron has a plan At the next peace talks he will take him like a man
So one night he walks into the Kremlin Fingers on the blade “Hello Manu,” said the smirking Putin Last sound that he made
Mad bad Vlad Putin Ruler of the Russian scene A total bastard, it has to be said Mad bad Vlad Putin With his mighty war machine It didn’t save him and now he is dead
Mad bad Vlad Putin Tsar of Tsars his fevered dream But what he bit off he couldn’t quite chew Mad bad Vlad Putin With his Russian war machine He lies at rest now, lips going blue
There lives a man in Russia as we speak He is short and bald, and his torso oh so sleek Asked if they love him his subjects say of course And especially when they see him on a horse
He bangs on and on about the weak west Full of piss and wind Thoughts he harbours, of its bloody conquest All that woke shit binned
Mad bad Vlad Putin No more trannies is the dream He is a cat that really has gone Mad bad Vlad Putin With his Russian war machine Until it’s done, he’ll just carry on
Things get rather messy very quick Sheets of fire rain down and the world is feeling sick Vlad’s ok though, he really doesn’t care Cos he’s safe as houses in his Moscow lair
For his sins he pays a price of zero He still thinks it’s cool In his mind’s eye he’s a Soviet hero To be taught in school
Mad bad Vlad Putin No more voting is his dream He is a cat that really has gone Mad bad Vlad Putin With his Russian war machine Until it’s done, he’ll just carry on
But when his ranting and raving And his designer wardrobe Become known to more and more people The demands to do something About this outrageous man Become louder and louder
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey …
Vlad’s just got to go, declared the spooked west If we don’t get rid he’ll become an awful pest How should we do it? Macron has a plan At the next peace talks he will take him like a man
So one night he walks into the Kremlin Fingers on the blade “Hello Manu,” said the smirking Putin Last sound that he made
Mad bad Vlad Putin Ruler of the Russian scene A total bastard, it has to be said Mad bad Vlad Putin With his mighty war machine It didn’t save him and now he is dead
Mad bad Vlad Putin Tsar of Tsars his fevered dream But what he bit off he couldn’t quite chew Mad bad Vlad Putin With his Russian war machine He lies at rest now, lips going blue
Oh, those Russians.
He'll be offended you don't consider him 'Russia's greatest love machine' although you were wise to ditch the bit about loving queens...
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
A relative of mine currently has COVID, has been one of those test-acholic, always taking the damn things every day. Started feeling ill a week ago, doing their usual LFT routine, 3 days in a row after symptoms all negative (and of course all negative before feeling ill). Has an upcoming medical procedure so had to go and get a PCR, was positive.
My hairdresser told similar story last week: felt crap, four days of negative LFT, finally persuaded by son to get PCR, positive.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
A relative of mine currently has COVID, has been one of those test-acholic, always taking the damn things every day. Started feeling ill a week ago, doing their usual LFT routine, 3 days in a row after symptoms all negative (and of course all negative before feeling ill). Has an upcoming medical procedure so had to go and get a PCR, was positive.
My hairdresser told similar story last week: felt crap, four days of negative LFT, finally persuaded by son to get PCR, positive.
I could tell many similar stories from my school.
Which begs the fairly obvious question, what was the fricking point of all this LFT obsession?
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
There is no reason to assume that disestablishing the CoE would mean that the established church would de facto become the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot think of a country even where the majority faith is Roman Catholic and that church is 'established' in the way the CoE is in England. The Irish constitution only requires the state to support freedom of religion. In the USA there is an unestablished Anglcan Church whilst the largest single demonination is RC. Neither are established - the first ammendment to the constitution rules out establishment. And RC canon law precludes clerics occupying positions of civil governance.
Christianity in the USA is divided between the Roman Catholic Church and the evangelical Baptist and Pentecostal churches which dominate.
The US Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority now
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
Zelenskyy publicly giving every EU country marks out of ten for support. Germany, Ireland, Portugal: Could do better. Belgium: Must try harder. Hungary, see me after school
Dmitri A. Medvedev, the former Russian president and vice chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said the country was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the United States and Europe if its existence was threatened, the latest instance of nuclear saber-rattling as Russia faces fierce resistance in Ukraine.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
A relative of mine currently has COVID, has been one of those test-acholic, always taking the damn things every day. Started feeling ill a week ago, doing their usual LFT routine, 3 days in a row after symptoms all negative (and of course all negative before feeling ill). Has an upcoming medical procedure so had to go and get a PCR, was positive.
My hairdresser told similar story last week: felt crap, four days of negative LFT, finally persuaded by son to get PCR, positive.
I could tell many similar stories from my school.
Which begs the fairly obvious question, what was the fricking point of all this LFT obsession?
No point now. Previously it was useful when suppression was possible as positive lateral flow indicated infectiousnous far better than PCR which can be positive way after you cease being a hazard to others. Problem is some are addicted to them, and for them the end of the free drug is going to be an issue.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
There is no reason to assume that disestablishing the CoE would mean that the established church would de facto become the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot think of a country even where the majority faith is Roman Catholic and that church is 'established' in the way the CoE is in England. The Irish constitution only requires the state to support freedom of religion. In the USA there is an unestablished Anglcan Church whilst the largest single demonination is RC. Neither are established - the first ammendment to the constitution rules out establishment. And RC canon law precludes clerics occupying positions of civil governance.
Christianity in the USA is divided between the Roman Catholic Church and the evangelical Baptist and Pentecostal churches which dominate.
The US Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority now
Has always surprised me that RC has continued to be strong in the US.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
There is no reason to assume that disestablishing the CoE would mean that the established church would de facto become the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot think of a country even where the majority faith is Roman Catholic and that church is 'established' in the way the CoE is in England. The Irish constitution only requires the state to support freedom of religion. In the USA there is an unestablished Anglcan Church whilst the largest single demonination is RC. Neither are established - the first ammendment to the constitution rules out establishment. And RC canon law precludes clerics occupying positions of civil governance.
Christianity in the USA is divided between the Roman Catholic Church and the evangelical Baptist and Pentecostal churches which dominate.
The US Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority now
Has always surprised me that RC has continued to be strong in the US.
The Hispanic population are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and the Irish and Italian Americans are too.
Zelenskyy publicly giving every EU country marks out of ten for support. Germany, Ireland, Portugal: Could do better. Belgium: Must try harder. Hungary, see me after school
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
There is no reason to assume that disestablishing the CoE would mean that the established church would de facto become the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot think of a country even where the majority faith is Roman Catholic and that church is 'established' in the way the CoE is in England. The Irish constitution only requires the state to support freedom of religion. In the USA there is an unestablished Anglcan Church whilst the largest single demonination is RC. Neither are established - the first ammendment to the constitution rules out establishment. And RC canon law precludes clerics occupying positions of civil governance.
Christianity in the USA is divided between the Roman Catholic Church and the evangelical Baptist and Pentecostal churches which dominate.
The US Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority now
Has always surprised me that RC has continued to be strong in the US.
The Hispanic population are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and the Irish and Italian Americans are too.
Yeah, I know - lots of RC roots. Just the Catholic church seems quite at odds with much else concerning the US. Perhaps that's some of it's appeal there?
Here’s a fun thread - someone has created a green screen of the clown taken from the video of him wandering around being blanked by the other world leaders, and the rest of Twitter has had fun inserting it into various scenarios:
Zelenskyy publicly giving every EU country marks out of ten for support. Germany, Ireland, Portugal: Could do better. Belgium: Must try harder. Hungary, see me after school
Zelenskyy publicly giving every EU country marks out of ten for support. Germany, Ireland, Portugal: Could do better. Belgium: Must try harder. Hungary, see me after school
Zelenskyy publicly giving every EU country marks out of ten for support. Germany, Ireland, Portugal: Could do better. Belgium: Must try harder. Hungary, see me after school
Zelenskyy publicly giving every EU country marks out of ten for support. Germany, Ireland, Portugal: Could do better. Belgium: Must try harder. Hungary, see me after school
What has become apparent from all these speeches he gives to various parliaments is Zelenskyy is a canny political operator, where he uses well known stereotypes, triumphs and sore sorts in equal measure to both garner plaudits but also enough red meat to local audience to guilt trip them into doing more.
Zelenskyy publicly giving every EU country marks out of ten for support. Germany, Ireland, Portugal: Could do better. Belgium: Must try harder. Hungary, see me after school
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
Oh, I think that the Royal Family have long experience of manipulative bullies within the organisation.
Question for you doc. One of my oldest friends has a wife with Covid. She’s had two positive tests and feels fairly bad. Like a modestly nasty cold
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
A relative of mine currently has COVID, has been one of those test-acholic, always taking the damn things every day. Started feeling ill a week ago, doing their usual LFT routine, 3 days in a row after symptoms all negative (and of course all negative before feeling ill). Has an upcoming medical procedure so had to go and get a PCR, was positive.
My hairdresser told similar story last week: felt crap, four days of negative LFT, finally persuaded by son to get PCR, positive.
I could tell many similar stories from my school.
Which begs the fairly obvious question, what was the fricking point of all this LFT obsession?
No point now. Previously it was useful when suppression was possible as positive lateral flow indicated infectiousnous far better than PCR which can be positive way after you cease being a hazard to others. Problem is some are addicted to them, and for them the end of the free drug is going to be an issue.
Also, were we not told right from the start that LFT is only for symptomless testing and that if you have symptoms, you should take a PCR test?
Comments
Because of the way societies develop not according to pre design but in an evolutionary way we have several strands. 1, the established church, 2 an amazing ecclesiastical building heritage, 3 the public expectation that the CoE is available for all comers (still massively strong in some parts) as and when they want it, 4 enthusiastic and diverse religious traditions.
Because of 2 and 3 the tax payer should support the buildings aspect. There is no public desire to let them fall down or to be told to go away when asking the established church for something. And there is a case for public support for established church ministers in run down places that can't fund them. The wealthy can and do fund the vicars. But the public do still expect them in Scunthorpe as well as South Kensington.
Doesn't sound like Arriflex.
And for various reasons I fill my life with multiple jobs - running the UK arm of the charity, translating, council Executive, chairing the CLP. I fit in relaxation (socialising, mostly, and some poker and computer games) from time to time, like someone planning a short trip to the shops. I'm quite happy, and never bored.
But convalescing from Covid, I thought I'd take a mug of tea and Follett's The Man from St Petersburg into the neglected garden. Sat for an hour in the sun. A beautiful butterfly hovered around me, then sat companionably on the garden table. I've nothing in particular to do all day, or tomorrow, and I'm signed off from work for a few days. I suppose this is what retirement is like? It's quite nice too.
When JK Rowling sat in that cafe all those years ago, there’s no way she could have known she’d one day be endorsed by Vladimir Putin. Never give up on your dreams.
https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1507365996201455638
As she had been said to have Jewish ancestry, she had to flee Germany.
As I understand it, attempts to reclaim the house (called Linden Villa) were unsuccessful due to the authorities claiming that it had been sold freely (for a tiny fraction of the price, which was never paid) and Eva had decided of her own volition to donate the contents (including sketches of herself by Munch).
There's a book that's been written about her, called "Lady with a Brooch": https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1733560203/
Interesting story on the front of the FT - P&O Ferries are in a fight with a pension regulator over the claimed value of some ferries they have put up as collateral for pension obligations - at many multiples of the value they recently disposed of some slightly older siblings for…
(when you are recovered, obvs)
During the first lockdowns I'd walk to a local-ish park every day and sit for an hour just watching the world go by. Occurred to me it was the first time in many, many years I'd spent time in the same spot outdoors over an extended period. There was something deeply relaxing about watching the leaves on the trees change over the weeks and months, seeing different birds come and go, berries coming out.
I've somewhat fallen out of the habit. But now that the weather is picking up a bit I should really make the effort again. I sure it did me a world of good.
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1507715169685803010
>Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
That's a narrow definition of Church Membership, and that is a matter for the church.
And it should be a matter for the Church whether they wish to give that right to all parishioners.
The BHA turn somersaults to pretend they represent agnostics as well as humanists, and any "are you a humanist" survey I have ever seen could be signed up to by any vicar I have ever met.
IMO the underlying issue here is that Church of England Vicars are legally Registrars who marry people in law as well as in the church, unlike some other denominations.
Cameron should have split off the Govt-recognised marriage registration (which mainly relates to taxes) from religious (or humanist, say) marriage when he did same-sex marriage, but he was in too much of a hurry to do it in a properly thought-through way.
A "vanishing down the plughole" logo seems appropriate for something maritime.
P.S. I think to got to 7 generals, they are including the Checken Maj General.
sounds like the Ukrainians might be after the Russian Fleet.
however could also be:
a) Russians calming Sebastopol is under attack to wipe up anti Ukrainian feeling in Crimea, or
b) Jumpy Russians firing at a flock of birds, or similar.
I would be interested to see more on that, where did you see it reported?
https://twitter.com/jeffgoodell/status/1507715500159217664
https://www.google.com/search?q=https://amp.ft.com/content/daa853e0-29fd-4962-8be9-7b36dbbb70f0
People who are caught by fiscal drag are getting a pay rise
They may get to keep less that they expect, but the number on the bottom of the pay slip is going up
But also we have people to hatch, match and despatch already. Paid for by the state. Called 'registrars'.
So this amounts to religious (and, in some ways, de facto though not intentional racial) bias in public services, which is ...
There's a reason we report on real (i.e. inflation adjusted) and not nominal GDP growth.
The entire population has rights with regard to the CoE, but no duties of any sort. Obviously lots of people want to abolish it, but millions of people simply assume that's the way it is and that's OK. It still has to be paid for. I think the people of Scunthorpe are as important as the posh bits who can pay for it easily.
https://twitter.com/TheShipYard2/status/1507138034499821575/photo/1
On paper, pay will go up and tax rates will go down.
But people are likely to have less money at the end of the month. More likely, negative money.
Which perception wins out?
Definitely not Arri, either.
For an inflation rate of 6%, the effect of fiscal drag is that someone currently earning at the higher rate of tax threshold (£50,271) needs a pay increase of 8.5% to maintain their real post-tax income at the same level in real terms.
People complained about Gordon Brown using fiscal drag to stealthily raise taxes, but he did so at a time when the rate of inflation was low. With the rate of inflation now much higher, the effect of fiscal drag is also much higher. It represents a massive increase in taxation.
‘I don’t think Rishi is everything PR people make him out to be
‘He’s a billionaire who’s building a gym & swimming pool
‘I don’t think public mind someone who is successful there’s a problem when they seem privileged’
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1507712476288372737
there’s a problem when they seem privileged
WTF is Gold wallpaper?
It never seems to have occurred to him that there might be a drawback to this idea...
Now he’s got symptoms. Sleeping all the time. Sweats. Yet he’s had two negative lft tests.
Is it possible to have symptomatic covid yet consistently test negative?
I’ve told him he’s either faking it, like a sympathetic pregnancy, or he should get a PCR. He’s non amenable to either idea
Good luck to your friends. Covid is not nice.
Anecdotally, my brother-in-law had symptoms for a few days, tested negative, but then subsequently tested positive, so perhaps the initial symptoms were his initial immune system response, which the virus eventually managed to overwhelm sufficiently for him to test positive on an LFT.
I have no problem at all with supporting the old buildings and so on.
Mr. B, just about to check the markets, although Ladbrokes can often be a bit slow to wake up.
The circuit is more forgiving this year... but not by much. Super easy to cock up a lap and turn your car into a ruin.
It's the flipside of the invisible damage issue that some people had back before the vaccines.
Virus stages:
- Virus gets into you. Very low level, you are not infectious yet. PCR goes positive at some point between here and the third stage
- Virus starts eating its way into your cells, taking them over to reproduce itself (kind of like a very mini Alien)
- Viral load increases, you become infectious, LFT goes positive
The immune system is what gives you symptoms as it swings into gear. If it doesn't recognise the thing (due to being immune-naive) and reacts slowly, the virus can get chewing away at you and spreading silently for quite a while. This is where an oximeter can come in handy, as it registers the loss of lung capacity.
If the immune system recognises the thing really quickly (vaccinated, boosted, strong immune system, low initial viral load), it can get traction very early. Symptoms kick in as it goes and this can be before the virus has chomped away enough to spread sufficiently to be discernibly infectious to others (so no positive LFT). Sometimes it'll get infectious enough before being swept up (so you'll still get a positive LFT in time - just a couple or three or four days after symptoms begin). On occasion, the immune system will hold it down so well that it never spreads enough to become infectious and you have covid and recover without ever triggering an LFT.
For various reasons he is also at peak immunity. Boostered about five weeks ago. Perhaps that might also produce negative tests?
Thanks to all for the feedback
According to the Donetsk PR, That's on of the 2 self declared independent republics fighting alongside Russia: there casualties reported on 17 March: 349 soldiers killed, 1,930 wounded.
To me this seems credible, with a less sophisticated PR department and there men fighting closer to home its probably harder to hide the losses, and the KIA and wended ratio sounds credible at nearly 5 to 1. its 9 days ago so it will have gone up since then, and its worth noting that up to that point Donetsk had been less active than many other areas, both the movement of the front and behind the Front. even so Donetsk clamed to have an army of 20,000 before the war, therefor that would be 21.4% of there starting manpower, in 3 weeks.
Anybody else this this might be the first credible self reputed casualty number so far?
Heroically, I've split a single stake equally between Sainz each way at 9 and Perez each way at 15 to be fastest qualifier (third the odds top 2). I'll post the waffle soonish.
On the twitters that collate photos of vehicles destroyed and captured it does seem as though most of the Ukrainian vehicles captured/destroyed have been attacked by the DNR - which is another sign of an active front, but perhaps if they've done relatively well they won't have suffered terrible losses.
Betting PostF1: as mentioned, backed (with one stake split evenly) Perez at 15 each way and Sainz at 9 each way (third the odds top 2) to be fastest qualifier.
It seems like a definite top four but with narrow barriers, traffic potentially being a problem, and gusting wind it'd be very easy for Leclerc or Verstappen to make an error or get unlucky.
Edited extra bit: https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/03/saudi-arabia-pre-qualifying-2022.html
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1507735436743135236?s=20&t=xpZ6rtOgZ14njasJ7G5gmA
Nice of the Russians to leave the church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16y1AkoZkmQ
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey …
There lives a man in Russia as we speak
He is short and bald, and his torso oh so sleek
Asked if they love him his subjects say of course
And especially when they see him on a horse
He bangs on and on about the weak west
Full of piss and wind
Thoughts he harbours, of its bloody conquest
All that woke shit binned
Mad bad Vlad Putin
No more trannies is the dream
He is a cat that really has gone
Mad bad Vlad Putin
With his Russian war machine
Until it’s done, he’ll just carry on
Things get rather messy very quick
Sheets of fire rain down and the world is feeling sick
Vlad’s ok though, he really doesn’t care
Cos he’s safe as houses in his Moscow lair
For his sins he pays a price of zero
He still thinks it’s cool
In his mind’s eye he’s a Soviet hero
To be taught in school
Mad bad Vlad Putin
No more voting is his dream
He is a cat that really has gone
Mad bad Vlad Putin
With his Russian war machine
Until it’s done, he’ll just carry on
But when his ranting and raving
And his designer wardrobe
Become known to more and more people
The demands to do something
About this outrageous man
Become louder and louder
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey …
Vlad’s just got to go, declared the spooked west
If we don’t get rid he’ll become an awful pest
How should we do it? Macron has a plan
At the next peace talks he will take him like a man
So one night he walks into the Kremlin
Fingers on the blade
“Hello Manu,” said the smirking Putin
Last sound that he made
Mad bad Vlad Putin
Ruler of the Russian scene
A total bastard, it has to be said
Mad bad Vlad Putin
With his mighty war machine
It didn’t save him and now he is dead
Mad bad Vlad Putin
Tsar of Tsars his fevered dream
But what he bit off he couldn’t quite chew
Mad bad Vlad Putin
With his Russian war machine
He lies at rest now, lips going blue
Oh, those Russians.
Which begs the fairly obvious question, what was the fricking point of all this LFT obsession?
The US Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority now
There’s more suspense in dog dancing.
https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1507714229922680834?s=21&t=8n43xDGp1pUgdhld3GII4w
NY Times blog
Problem is some are addicted to them, and for them the end of the free drug is going to be an issue.
https://twitter.com/MattHighton/status/1507129762203979786
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/56549600