Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
Tell me again, Prime Minister, that engaging story about what you were doing the night before my husband’s funeral.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
Tell me again, Prime Minister, that engaging story about what you were doing the night before my husband’s funeral.
Neither Welby nor Andrew will be there, the sermon will be given by the Archbishop of York.
Note Andrew not only was banned from the balcony earlier today but failed to even make the back window unlike the Sussexes and his daughters and husbands
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
Tell me again, Prime Minister, that engaging story about what you were doing the night before my husband’s funeral.
Well Bozo was in Chequers but all the mice (staff) in No 10 were playing / drinking because the Big Cat / Dog was away.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
US verdict - she lied about him abusing her. UK verdict - the Sun didn't lie when it said he abused her. Which is more likely correct? I don't know. A single judge can be eccentric and produce perverse verdicts. A celebrity televised US trial can become a circus and produce perverse verdicts.
The decisions and evidence were laid out and subject to great examination in the US trial. That does not appear to have been the case in the UK trial when Heard's evidence was simply taken as fact. We also know as a matter of fact that Heard lied in the UK trial as she has had to admit in the US trial.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
No, come on, nobody who had read the quite jawdropping summing up by the judge in Archer vs Daily Star could ever trust the judgment of the English judiciary when there's a fragrant young laydee in the mix
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexuals
But the Archer one was for real. "A well-known player of the pink oboe" was Peter Cook.
Peter Cook was satirising the summing-up, the day afterwards. On Norman Scott: ‘He is a crook, a fraud, a sponger, a whiner and a parasite. But of course, he could still be telling the truth.’ Fun fact: the pink oboe line was given to Cook by Billy Connolly. Other fun fact: Scott did indeed seem to be a sponger, a whiner and a parasite.
Another fun fact - Tom Baker has a line along the lines of "I gave a thorough blow on my pink oboe" in "Doctor Who and the Pescatons". I had the LP as a child but the line rather passed me by at the time.
Seeing as I missed the edit window - it was actually a 'pink piccolo', which seems rather modest of him.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
$13M
I thought it was $15m in damages (which, by the way, does not sound unreasonable given he basically hasn't worked since the article), plus she will have had to pay her lawyers millions.
Punitive damages are capped in Virginia at 350k. also 2mil of for her claim net 8.3 mil
Apologies if this has been covered. But Russian prosecutor says two British soldiers captured in Ukraine "may face death penalty." That's the most worrying thing I've heard in a while.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
$13M
I thought it was $15m in damages (which, by the way, does not sound unreasonable given he basically hasn't worked since the article), plus she will have had to pay her lawyers millions.
Punitive damages are capped in Virginia at 350k. also 2mil of for her claim net 8.3 mil
What is the 2m of her claim bit?
Ah, according to Yahoo! it's "Depp in turn was ordered to pay Heard $2 million related to her counter-claims in the case"
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
US verdict - she lied about him abusing her. UK verdict - the Sun didn't lie when it said he abused her. Which is more likely correct? I don't know. A single judge can be eccentric and produce perverse verdicts. A celebrity televised US trial can become a circus and produce perverse verdicts.
The decisions and evidence were laid out and subject to great examination in the US trial. That does not appear to have been the case in the UK trial when Heard's evidence was simply taken as fact. We also know as a matter of fact that Heard lied in the UK trial as she has had to admit in the US trial.
I think the fundamental problem Depp had in the UK was that he was appalling and unprepared under cross-examination, and came across as slippery as an eel.
If he'd been as well prepared in the UK as he was in the US, the verdict would have been very different.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
Preferable to Boris Bulls*** I would have thought.
When London Bridge finally falls Brenda will deserve better than a Peppa Pig quality eulogy.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
US verdict - she lied about him abusing her. UK verdict - the Sun didn't lie when it said he abused her. Which is more likely correct? I don't know. A single judge can be eccentric and produce perverse verdicts. A celebrity televised US trial can become a circus and produce perverse verdicts.
The decisions and evidence were laid out and subject to great examination in the US trial. That does not appear to have been the case in the UK trial when Heard's evidence was simply taken as fact. We also know as a matter of fact that Heard lied in the UK trial as she has had to admit in the US trial.
Surely there was cross examination and witnesses and duelling barristers etc in the UK trial.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
$13M
I thought it was $15m in damages (which, by the way, does not sound unreasonable given he basically hasn't worked since the article), plus she will have had to pay her lawyers millions.
Punitive damages are capped in Virginia at 350k. also 2mil of for her claim net 8.3 mil
What is the 2m of her claim bit?
She won 1 counter claim about her staging a domestic abuse incident. It hinges on the fact that Depps lawyer claimed she called the police twice and tried to set him up. But she only called them once, the other visit was a follow up. On the wider counter claim that the abuse was not a hoax she lost. At least that is how I understand it.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
You've heard a spitfire?
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.
Git.
Some of us have only flown gliders and Cessnas. It’s more fun flying on your own though
Not if I'm flying it isn't. My main memories of flying a glider was trying to overtake a tug from the right, left, above and below as I over reacted to the higher speed. God knows what the pilot thought I was doing. The other was thinking I had really cracked the winch launch (it was so easy) only to find the instructor taking over the controls as he did a field landing because the winch hadn't changed gear properly and we couldn't do a circuit as we were too low. Incompetence doesn't cover it.
Areotows are easy after a couple of goes. Just keep your aircraft nose pointed at the tail of the aircraft in front - the one with the rope connecting you!
Winch launches take a bit more practice (but are cheaper and faster), you have to understand the nuances of your winch, and work out when it’s good and when it’s failing. As I’m sure your instructor made clear after you “landed out” in the wrong field!
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
US verdict - she lied about him abusing her. UK verdict - the Sun didn't lie when it said he abused her. Which is more likely correct? I don't know. A single judge can be eccentric and produce perverse verdicts. A celebrity televised US trial can become a circus and produce perverse verdicts.
The decisions and evidence were laid out and subject to great examination in the US trial. That does not appear to have been the case in the UK trial when Heard's evidence was simply taken as fact. We also know as a matter of fact that Heard lied in the UK trial as she has had to admit in the US trial.
Surely there was cross examination and witnesses and duelling barristers etc in the UK trial.
All of which failed to uncover the fact that she was lying under oath. As she has now admitted in the US court case.
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainers
Which is totally true. Republicans - not the US sort - generally tend to be a miserable, moralistic, self-righteous bunch who drone on about the so-called inequities of the monarchy. Imagine having a nation of Farooqs in charge of things.
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!
I would imagine it as a grey, mediocre, joyless nation with everyone singing Kumbaya in organised weekly social groups. A sort of anglicised version of West Germany.
I was doing so well at dodging all mention of the Depp/Heard trial. Youtube was even recommending videos (presumably promoted by Depp fans) with titles like "how Depp's lawyer destroyed Amber Heard" and "how Depp turned the table on these lawyers"... and still I resisted.
I said to myself... you're allowed one celebrity trial and Rooney/Vardy is it (the relative frivolity of the issues made it seem more harmless).
A heroic one-man struggle to avoid getting sucked into pointless celebrity noise. And now sadly, tragically, I am undone. I've read about the trial. I have an opinion. I have failed.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
US verdict - she lied about him abusing her. UK verdict - the Sun didn't lie when it said he abused her. Which is more likely correct? I don't know. A single judge can be eccentric and produce perverse verdicts. A celebrity televised US trial can become a circus and produce perverse verdicts.
The decisions and evidence were laid out and subject to great examination in the US trial. That does not appear to have been the case in the UK trial when Heard's evidence was simply taken as fact. We also know as a matter of fact that Heard lied in the UK trial as she has had to admit in the US trial.
Yes and key audio recordings of Heard admitting she physically assaulted Depp was ruled out in the UK trial. Lots of other key evidence in favour of Depp wasn't presented by the UK legal team such as the pictures and videos demolishing her claims of being abused. The US legal team was far, far better prepared. Their cross examination of her was absolutely excruciating at times. Just watch the female barrister get to the truth of Heard not donating the money to the charities despite having testified under oath in the UK that she had.
It's quite disappointing that the UK courts have been shown up so badly by this. The arbitrary ruling out of key evidence, a single judge ruling on the case, the lack of hard evidence presented by Heard not being taken into account. The US trial got it right.
I was doing so well at dodging all mention of the Depp/Heard trial. Youtube was even recommending videos (presumably promoted by Depp fans) with titles like "how Depp's lawyer destroyed Amber Heard" and "how Depp turned the table on these lawyers"... and still I resisted.
I said to myself... you're allowed one celebrity trial and Rooney/Vardy is it (the relative frivolity of the issues made it seem more harmless).
A heroic one-man struggle to avoid getting sucked into pointless celebrity noise. And now sadly, tragically, I am undone. I've read about the trial. I have an opinion. I have failed.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
Preferable to Boris Bulls*** I would have thought.
When London Bridge finally falls Brenda will deserve better than a Peppa Pig quality eulogy.
Got to be at least a small issue weighing on the tory letter writers. Do we really want Johnson leading the nation in mourning?
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Rather him than Johnson.
Keep taking the pills Queenie
My wife and I look forward to your card in May 2024 on our Diamond wedding anniversary
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
Just so you know, when this country is being run by an army of Farooqs, people who use Roman numerals along with ordinal indicators (as you did after "Charles") will be Ist against the wall.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
That wasn’t my point.
Now, I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial at all, so I’m playing catch-up.
But as far as I can tell, she implied he was a domestic abuser, and what evidence we have suggests that he was (and that so was she, and that she’s also a liar).
This also seems to be the opinion of some random lawyers I know.
Except all the 'evidence' has come from her and has not been corroborated. Which, when she has been shown to be a proven liar, means that the jury were perfectly entitled to assume she was lying about this as well. I certainly don't think there is any reason to say the jury 'got it wrong'. All the more so since the judge directed them that if there was any evidence or any belief on their part that he had committed any abuse at any time towards Heard then they would have to find against him. So the Jury not only didn't think he was as bad as he was painted by Heard, they actually concluded he had not committed any abuse at all.
Which goes back to the key point from the coverage of the likes of the BBC and the Guardian that essentially says the jury got it wrong. She admitted she lied in court and got caught out on multiple occasions telling untruths. I agree with @MaxPB that the real losers are the genuine victims of domestic abuse whose claims will be more prone to dismissal.
Perhaps we should resolve firmly to *not* draw that inference then - that this case in any way weakens the assertion that the vast majority of women who say they have been a victim of male violence have been a victim of male violence.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
This Jubilee weekend has rather crept up on me unawares. But now there is lots going on of interest. The house is full again. Daughter has returned from Croatia and Greece without, thank God, a weird flint knapper in tow or, even, that "wanker SeanT" - as @Leon calls him - who seems to have been travelling in the same places. (Mothers do worry.) And the weather is glorious.
I did not watch Trooping of the Colour as it's far too nice outside. A few years ago an army friend got us tickets for the rehearsal so we had all the fun of the real thing without the crowds etc.
Yesterday was the start of the Ulverston Music Festival. We are one of the sponsors and get tickets to all the concerts which are very good indeed and cover classical, jazz and world music. The organiser, Anthony Hewitt, is playing the piano in Millom's main square tomorrow at 11 then Broughton and Ulverston before a performance of La Boheme by English Touring Opera. More music over the weekend and Cartmel races plus a Jubilee event at the Village Hall: booze, bonfire etc. The event we had for Guy Fawkes last year was amazing. So it should be fun - regardless of views on the monarchy.
There are knitted royalty items in Ulverston and I find them quite endearing, really.
I have also realised that one of the beds in the front garden is - unintentionally - full of patriotic colours: red geum, white peonies and blue Himalayan poppies. It is quite magnificent.
Sheep are bleating in the fields behind me.
That reminds me: cannot be arsed with politics.
Devon verges are always red white and blue in May (scarlet campion, * of bethlehem and cow parsley, bluebells. Much the best time of year, its all manky and tired by July
One of my recent knitting projects was unintentionally in a patriotic red, white and blue, as those happened to be the yarns we had to hand in the right amounts for test knitting a friend's new shawl pattern, Overmorrow. As a set of colours they do go very well together.
That's lovely.
I love knitting. I'm finishing a summer top for my daughter at the moment - in blue and cream silk/cotton.
Apologies if this has been covered. But Russian prosecutor says two British soldiers captured in Ukraine "may face death penalty." That's the most worrying thing I've heard in a while.
It is depressing. But not that worrying. Won't help Russia very much - I can't see British public opinion shifting particularly in its favour. Things like this tend to support the notion that Russia has to be beaten.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
Labour 39% (-4) Conservative 33% (-3) Liberal Democrat 12% (+2) Green 6% (+1) Scottish National Party 4% (+1) Reform UK 4% (+2) Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 29 May
Reversion of an outlier then.
I guess Rishi's fabled "saviour" budget has failed to hit the mark once again
Neither Gray nor Rishi appear to have made any difference
Or. They balanced each other out? I do find it interesting not much moves the polls since January. There's a heck of a lot happened. But Labour by five or so seems to be stuck now.
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
That's actually better than the PM in Scotland, you know.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
Normally when Labour get into government they spend far more than the nation can afford while raising taxes on wealth creators, so dealing with the transition between monarchs will distract him for a time from wrecking the economy
Labour 39% (-4) Conservative 33% (-3) Liberal Democrat 12% (+2) Green 6% (+1) Scottish National Party 4% (+1) Reform UK 4% (+2) Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 29 May
Reversion of an outlier then.
I guess Rishi's fabled "saviour" budget has failed to hit the mark once again
Neither Gray nor Rishi appear to have made any difference
Or. They balanced each other out? I do find it interesting not much moves the polls since January. There's a heck of a lot happened. But Labour by five or so seems to be stuck now.
Possible yeah but i think basically its all on certainty to vote. Until fatbastardgate resolves we will bounce around where we are. After that the tories may recover short term and probably need to cut and run before CoL kills them
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
Normally when Labour get into government they spend far more than the nation can afford while raising taxes on wealth creators, so dealing with the transition between monarchs will distract him for a time from wrecking the economy
I don't feel able to comment on the logic of that statement adequately, so I am off to find where I put the book of the RAF Coronation Review 1953 and work out just how many present-day Raffs it would need to emulate.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
Normally when Labour get into government they spend far more than the nation can afford while raising taxes on wealth creators, so dealing with the transition between monarchs will distract him for a time from wrecking the economy
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
He will be shut out completely after the bridge event
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
Normally when Labour get into government they spend far more than the nation can afford while raising taxes on wealth creators, so dealing with the transition between monarchs will distract him for a time from wrecking the economy
Well, taking a long view:
Interesting to see that the Attlee administration, for instancxe, did a fair job of reducing debt, at leas ton that crude measure.
Labour 39% (-4) Conservative 33% (-3) Liberal Democrat 12% (+2) Green 6% (+1) Scottish National Party 4% (+1) Reform UK 4% (+2) Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 29 May
Reversion of an outlier then.
I guess Rishi's fabled "saviour" budget has failed to hit the mark once again
Neither Gray nor Rishi appear to have made any difference
Or. They balanced each other out? I do find it interesting not much moves the polls since January. There's a heck of a lot happened. But Labour by five or so seems to be stuck now.
That's my sense too. A robust lead now for Lab of 5 or 6 points. Maybe the Cons trading out of Johnson will wipe this out but I'm not as certain of that as many seem to be.
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
I remember 1953 as if it was yesterday as the neighbours crammed into our lounge, as we had a small black and white TV
Lots of sandwiches and cakes consumed and I will never forget my grandmother jumping to attention each and every time the nation anthem was played (@HYUFD would have loved her)
There is no doubt when the Queen dies the national news will be consumed for the period of the funeral and coronation and no matter that there may be less enthusiasm for the monarchy, it will dominate and make other will be overwhelmed
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
Normally when Labour get into government they spend far more than the nation can afford while raising taxes on wealth creators, so dealing with the transition between monarchs will distract him for a time from wrecking the economy
Well, taking a long view:
Interesting to see that the Attlee administration, for instancxe, did a fair job of reducing debt, at leas ton that crude measure.
It is worth remembering that when debt loads are very high, then a small amount of inflation and economic growth can make a big dent, even if you're running a deficit.
Imagine debt-to-GDP of 200% and deficit of 3% of GDP.
If you combine this with inflation of 4% and economic growth of 3%, well... you get nominal GDP up 7%. So the total debt load goes up 3% from the deficit (to 203%), but is then reduced by 14% by the economy being bigger in nominal terms. Debt-to-GDP falls to 189-190%, despite the deficit.
A similar process is going to happen in both the UK and the Eurozone right now: high inflation will pull down debt-to-GDP, especially as most governments are extremely fortunate to have lots of long-term debt.
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
He will be shut out completely after the bridge event
Correct. By his brother, nephew and public opinion.
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
He will be shut out completely after the bridge event
Looks like we're at that point now really. Amazing to think he was once the most popular royal, flying helicopters and bestriding the high-end nightclubs of London like a colossus.
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
He will be shut out completely after the bridge event
Looks like we're at that point now really. Amazing to think he was once the most popular royal, flying helicopters and bestriding the high-end nightclubs of London like a colossus.
Then he went and partied with Jeffrey and the dozens of as yet unnamed nonces
The Queen would love Starmer. One less PM she needs to knight
If the Queen lives as long as her husband she will die in 2025, if she lives as long as her mother she will die in 2027.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
Have someone dig a hole. Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn. Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity. Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
More than that, the Queen's funeral will be the first full state funeral in the UK since Churchill's in 1965.
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
The Prime Minister will have more important things to do. Much more important. Economy, defence, social care, the pubhlic finances ... and if the finances are anything like they are now, spending huge sums in money and kind will not go down well.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
Normally when Labour get into government they spend far more than the nation can afford while raising taxes on wealth creators, so dealing with the transition between monarchs will distract him for a time from wrecking the economy
Quite right, you'd never find a Tory government spending far more than the nation can afford, would you?
I was doing so well at dodging all mention of the Depp/Heard trial. Youtube was even recommending videos (presumably promoted by Depp fans) with titles like "how Depp's lawyer destroyed Amber Heard" and "how Depp turned the table on these lawyers"... and still I resisted.
I said to myself... you're allowed one celebrity trial and Rooney/Vardy is it (the relative frivolity of the issues made it seem more harmless).
A heroic one-man struggle to avoid getting sucked into pointless celebrity noise. And now sadly, tragically, I am undone. I've read about the trial. I have an opinion. I have failed.
Very well. Alone.
Not quite. I did not follow either D/H or Wagatha; tbh I'm not really sure who Amber Heard is.
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
He will be shut out completely after the bridge event
Looks like we're at that point now really. Amazing to think he was once the most popular royal, flying helicopters and bestriding the high-end nightclubs of London like a colossus.
Then he went and partied with Jeffrey and the dozens of as yet unnamed nonces
Was Prince Andrew ever that popular? iirc he used to be derided as Air Miles Andy, and his marriage to Fergie was always a bit messy (although I gather they are on good terms now).
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
He will be shut out completely after the bridge event
Looks like we're at that point now really. Amazing to think he was once the most popular royal, flying helicopters and bestriding the high-end nightclubs of London like a colossus.
Then he went and partied with Jeffrey and the dozens of as yet unnamed nonces
Was Prince Andrew ever that popular? iirc he used to be derided as Air Miles Andy, and his marriage to Fergie was always a bit messy (although I gather they are on good terms now).
He was certainly called Randy Andy in the early 1980s - when I was still a student. THough that was not necessarily a sign of disapproval - could have been of envy (he had a liaison with Ms Stark at that time).
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.
You know the worst bit? Realising that you are never again going to pick them up off the sofa and carry them up to bed *without waking them.*
No, not for me. Tho that is a sweet moment: putting them to bed
For me, the terrible moment comes somewhere around 10-12 - and is in fact a sequence of moments - when they lose that perfect innocent childish unselfawareness, and the adult begins to emerge. They look at a toy, or a doll, or their favourite book - and they thrust it away. They do not need help to get to sleep. The door is shut. You hear the first troubled sigh of teenagerdom, which lies just ahead
I found it piercing, and quite saddening, but unavoidable of course, and something comes along to replace it. Sort of
What about the moment when they realize you're not superman you're just a bloke and quite a dodgy one too?
Or hasn't that happened yet?
For me it was the other way around. I’m serious. A deep period of mistrust gave way to “actually dad’s quite fun, if a bit unreliable”
Quiz question. What is the smallest country in the World to win an Olympic medal?
(No Googling.)
Does the Isle of Man compete on its own terms? If so, that's my guess. If not, Andorra?
Technically a Crown Dependency, but even if it wasn't, a smaller country has won a medal.
Andorra has never won an Olympic medal.
The Vatican?
The Vatican has never competed at the Olympics, but they do have their own Athletics Federation (which includes two Muslim Cleaners who live in the Vatican!). Their best result was Don Vincenzo Puccio, a Sicilian priest, who won a silver medal in the Maratona di Messina.
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
It's a long road back for Andrew, isn't it. It's high risk but if I were him I might try a "bare all" on something like Lorraine or Loose Women.
He will be shut out completely after the bridge event
Looks like we're at that point now really. Amazing to think he was once the most popular royal, flying helicopters and bestriding the high-end nightclubs of London like a colossus.
Then he went and partied with Jeffrey and the dozens of as yet unnamed nonces
Was Prince Andrew ever that popular? iirc he used to be derided as Air Miles Andy, and his marriage to Fergie was always a bit messy (although I gather they are on good terms now).
I think Epstein had an open door policy for the numerous nonces amongst the rich and famous. They all spent time with him
Comments
Note Andrew not only was banned from the balcony earlier today but failed to even make the back window unlike the Sussexes and his daughters and husbands
That's the most worrying thing I've heard in a while.
Either way if Starmer becomes PM after a 2024 general election dealing with the death of the Queen and the accession of King Charles will be one of his biggest tasks as new PM
If he'd been as well prepared in the UK as he was in the US, the verdict would have been very different.
When London Bridge finally falls Brenda will deserve better than a Peppa Pig quality eulogy.
I said to myself... you're allowed one celebrity trial and Rooney/Vardy is it (the relative frivolity of the issues made it seem more harmless).
A heroic one-man struggle to avoid getting sucked into pointless celebrity noise. And now sadly, tragically, I am undone. I've read about the trial. I have an opinion. I have failed.
Close a few streets and let those who want to mourn mourn.
Make a speech with platitudes about service and dignity.
Have someone fill in the hole.
Job done.
It's quite disappointing that the UK courts have been shown up so badly by this. The arbitrary ruling out of key evidence, a single judge ruling on the case, the lack of hard evidence presented by Heard not being taken into account. The US trial got it right.
I mean, please...
My wife and I look forward to your card in May 2024 on our Diamond wedding anniversary
There will then be the Coronation of King Charles IIIrd to prepare for, the first Coronation in this country since 1953
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Westminster Voting Intention (1 June):
Labour 39% (-4)
Conservative 33% (-3)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+2)
Green 6% (+1)
Scottish National Party 4% (+1)
Reform UK 4% (+2)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 29 May
"Only the Duke of York proved more unpopular than the Sussexes in both polls, with a five per cent approval rating, according to JL Partners. Asked what word first sprang to mind about the beleaguered Duke, most people said “paedophile”. Other words included “disgrace”, “pervert” and “liar”. The YouGov survey gave him an approval rating of -80."
YouGov
Labour 39% (-4)
Conservative 33% (-3)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+2)
Green 6% (+1)
Scottish National Party 4% (+1)
Reform UK 4% (+2)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 29 May
https://t.co/ruUb6K4wEd https://t.co/YRfQGfAz19
Nirmal service resumed
I guess Rishi's fabled "saviour" budget has failed to hit the mark once again
I love knitting. I'm finishing a summer top for my daughter at the moment - in blue and cream silk/cotton.
There are also serious questions about assuming 1953 as a model.
For instance, I know what the 1953 Fleet Review was like, cos my dad was there and I have the detailed programme. From memory, about 320 ships (including some guests from outwith the RN). No way can the 1953 precedent be followed, not least without wrecking the Navy's obligations.
The same stands for the Army and RAF.
So forget 1953, I think.
I do find it interesting not much moves the polls since January. There's a heck of a lot happened.
But Labour by five or so seems to be stuck now.
Lots of sandwiches and cakes consumed and I will never forget my grandmother jumping to attention each and every time the nation anthem was played (@HYUFD would have loved her)
There is no doubt when the Queen dies the national news will be consumed for the period of the funeral and coronation and no matter that there may be less enthusiasm for the monarchy, it will dominate and make other will be overwhelmed
Labour 39% (-4)
Conservative 33% (-3)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+2)
Green 6% (+1)
Scottish National Party 4% (+1)
Reform UK 4% (+2)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 29 May
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-38/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1532391693714178048/photo/1
Imagine debt-to-GDP of 200% and deficit of 3% of GDP.
If you combine this with inflation of 4% and economic growth of 3%, well... you get nominal GDP up 7%. So the total debt load goes up 3% from the deficit (to 203%), but is then reduced by 14% by the economy being bigger in nominal terms. Debt-to-GDP falls to 189-190%, despite the deficit.
A similar process is going to happen in both the UK and the Eurozone right now: high inflation will pull down debt-to-GDP, especially as most governments are extremely fortunate to have lots of long-term debt.
Quiz question. What is the smallest country in the World to win an Olympic medal?
(No Googling.)
Approve: 27% (-2)
Disapprove: 51% (-1)
Net: -24% (-1)
Changes +/- 29 May
Boo remains consistently unpopular, Starmer remains neutral
CON+RFM: 37%
Oh look, 20 points ahead!
Oh, hang on a minute.....
Andorra has never won an Olympic medal.
Never won a medal.
And yes, TeamGB for Isle of Man. There have been Manx medallists, but I was barking up the wrong tree.
https://www.olympiandatabase.com/index.php?id=31218&L=1
Not bad for 33,000 people and an area of 24 square miles.
We must not underestimate a 1997 repeat
Edit: I see someone else guessed that. I see now that they even got 3 at the last one, which I vaguely recall and is pretty remarkable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/02/clear-majority-of-people-crossing-channel-are-refugees-says-unhcr
* Or wherever Jason and Laura Kenny live
That was a GOOD moment
When he’s on form he really is a class act .