If there was one thing that typified the Queen's approach to pretty much everything it was that you carry on.
Which is what the rest of us should be doing. Not all this cancellation nonsense. By all means pay tribute, have minutes' silences etc but there is no reason for everything to go into suspended animation. Those preparing the funeral are doing their job and will do it magnificently I expect. The rest of us can do ours, including the politicians.
The energy bills aren't going to go away. We need to understand the plan announced yesterday and what it means for us all and how it is to be paid for. The Queen's death should not mean that the government avoids scrutiny or challenge. There are plenty of other issues which are not going to wait until the funeral or the coronation or whatever.
Nothing will more undermine support for a monarchy than claims that the proper functioning of government including all the tough bits which the executive may not like are somehow disrespectful to a dead monarch, especially one who made service and duty her calling card.
None of this stops people mourning or feeling sad or whatever. But often at a time of change or sadness it is the routines of daily life and the fact that you still have responsibilities to others which can provide structure and help, a scaffolding to stop grief overwhelming. That applies to people. And countries too.
The funeral will be a day to stop and remember and honour. But we don't need to turn into a catatonic state between now and then or even afterwards. I hope we don't anyway.
Spot on. Parliament has been on hold for 3 months for a leadership election, it sounds like that will be extended further. A few days later after they return they will stop work for another month for party conferences! It is all ridiculous that so little work can get done when we are in an economic crisis and proxy war.
It is the opposite of the Queens stoic and hard working approach, adjusting to so many different scenarios through her reign, but all with a work ethic and a determination to keep calm and carry on.
Truss should really, at an appropriate moment, announce cancellation of the conference recess
Ha, yes a cancellation I would support! Never going to happen though, because the people who like going to them are the movers and shakers, not football fans.
They will be cancelled because the TUC one has been cancelled and the LibDem one will be in the funeral week; and neither of the big two will want to lose the moral high ground. Politics.
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Yes. Religions have these elaborate rituals for very good reasons. They have evolved - culturally - to be socially and emotionally satisfying, consoling, soothing
We are in mourning as a nation. There it is
In a year we will forget the annoying fact that little Sally-Ann’s football match got cancelled, we will remember that everything stopped as we marked the death of the 96-year-old Queen, and we will feel a bit better knowing that we all did this together
It's a nice thought and also neat. Perhaps it will be thus. One of the vox pops I heard on the radio was that she has overseen a country which has moved from having an empire and being deferential to the one we have now. Is that progress good or bad? Each to their own but it's the truth imo. So in a year's time we might as easily say "what was all that about, stopping Sally-Ann's football match".
I am genuinely interested in why a particular activity not going ahead is appropriate (or it going ahead inappropriate).
There is no appropriate, or inappropriate, either decision is fine.
For many people the Queen was emotionally like a Grandmother. Our kids saw the news with us and said unprompted that they were sad the Queen died and that it reminded them of the death of [my] Nanna recently. Again this morning they were talking about it.
What people do after a death is up to them, people react differently. Some people like to postpone things, others don't. The FA have made their choice, that's their responsibility and their right to do so. Other sports have made their choice, again that's their responsibility and their right.
So long as nobody is mandating others can't do what they want to do, there's not an issue. If anyone wants to play football this weekend they can, it just won't be under the banner of the FA if they do.
Yeah I get that but why is it a mark of respect or disrespect to do or not do something. What is the intrinsic respectness of it.
There is an intrinsic respectness tho. If a clown, poodle and penis puppet festival was originally planned for the Mall this afternoon, do you think it should go ahead if they can find enough participants?
No. Obviously not. So then you agree: some respect and decorum is required, observed by all
It’s not going to be fun, either. A very important person has died. Possibly the most famous person in the world: and a person respected by tens of millions
We are in for a period of compulsory dull mourning. I suggest that if we didn’t do this we would feel the negative psychological after effects for decades
Mum is dead. We honour her by being bored, listless and sad for a while. But if we did coke and went to the Maldives we’d feel worse later on
Bring on the clown, poodle and penis puppets, say I.
What about those puppets detracts in any way from the feeling of sadness or respect or sense of loss that people may feel.
Because 98% of sane people would feel revulsion at a clown, poodle, and penis puppet show on the Mall this afternoon
As would you
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
And we can't microwave our way through it- it happens at the pace it happens. That's not really where we are as a culture.
It was the strange thing about yesterday afternoon. One one hand, everyone knew something was up and probably had a shrewd idea what had already happened. It was definitely right to get the choreographic ducks in a row before making the announcement, but it led to that odd interval of dead/not dead, like Schrodinger's poor cat.
Wasn't an issue in the past, because there wasn't acres of rolling screentime to fill.
I must admit, I've always rather enjoyed the bits between death and funeral of an elderly relative. Death hss happened. Whatever you're doing can stop, this is more important. And the family come together, and there are tears, but also joy snd laughter and food and drink because it is good to see these people. And then a few days later, the funeral happens. And there are big tears, but afterwards laughter, and things are better. And tears are now streaminh unbidden down my cheeks at the memories of family funerals. Anyway, yes, it's the way it goes. Not sure how we do this with 67 million people though.
If there was one thing that typified the Queen's approach to pretty much everything it was that you carry on.
Which is what the rest of us should be doing. Not all this cancellation nonsense. By all means pay tribute, have minutes' silences etc but there is no reason for everything to go into suspended animation. Those preparing the funeral are doing their job and will do it magnificently I expect. The rest of us can do ours, including the politicians.
The energy bills aren't going to go away. We need to understand the plan announced yesterday and what it means for us all and how it is to be paid for. The Queen's death should not mean that the government avoids scrutiny or challenge. There are plenty of other issues which are not going to wait until the funeral or the coronation or whatever.
Nothing will more undermine support for a monarchy than claims that the proper functioning of government including all the tough bits which the executive may not like are somehow disrespectful to a dead monarch, especially one who made service and duty her calling card.
None of this stops people mourning or feeling sad or whatever. But often at a time of change or sadness it is the routines of daily life and the fact that you still have responsibilities to others which can provide structure and help, a scaffolding to stop grief overwhelming. That applies to people. And countries too.
The funeral will be a day to stop and remember and honour. But we don't need to turn into a catatonic state between now and then or even afterwards. I hope we don't anyway.
Spot on. Parliament has been on hold for 3 months for a leadership election, it sounds like that will be extended further. A few days later after they return they will stop work for another month for party conferences! It is all ridiculous that so little work can get done when we are in an economic crisis and proxy war.
It is the opposite of the Queens stoic and hard working approach, adjusting to so many different scenarios through her reign, but all with a work ethic and a determination to keep calm and carry on.
Truss should really, at an appropriate moment, announce cancellation of the conference recess
Ha, yes a cancellation I would support! Never going to happen though, because the people who like going to them are the movers and shakers, not football fans.
Tbf the conferences could go ahead, just with MPs having to be in Westminster for any key votes, committees etc. Its happened before
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The Ukrainians obviously have to be very careful.
However, they are probably several pointers to say it's not overstretch. First, they are likely to be receiving top-notch intelligence from allies (plus their own partisan networks behind the lines). Second, it's clear Russia had cleared out most of its better forces from the area in the belief it was a "quiet" front. Third, to be overstretched implies there is a risk of a credible counterattack. Nothing from what we are seeing at the moment suggests the Russians are capable of that.
Personally, I think we are looking a plain old collapse of the front.
If it is a collapse of the front - then what? Excuse my strategic ignorance, but what could that imply? Ukraine advancing right to the border? Mass capture of troops?
The location of the collapse of this front implies that the Russian forces around Izyum, which have been attempting to advance to Sloviansk, would be cut off from their supply routes and at risk of being encircled.
Izyum was the first gain made by Russia in the east after withdrawing from the north around Kyiv. For them to lose it now, and all the troops there, would then have further implications for the entire front line across the Donbas.
It's not clear where a new front line could be established. I didn't expect the Ukrainians to make it to Kupyiansk. At some point we would expect the Ukrainian advance to run out of reserves and impetus and need to pause before they could move again, but the situation looks pretty dire for the Russian Army now. The effect on morale will be horrendous. No soldier wants to die, but dying in a lost cause feels particularly futile to most, and so the willingness to fight may evaporate.
Yes quite. The collapse in morale could be much worse than the collapse in strategic position
Why die for a war you don’t want, can’t understand, and are now losing?
A cluster from start to finish, including an unprovoked attack on British trawlers off Dogger Bank. Russian military victories are almost exclusively backs-to-the-wall defence of the homeland with no alternative (1812, 1942). They're not very good at consolidating accidental gains made against the run of play.
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The Ukrainians obviously have to be very careful.
However, they are probably several pointers to say it's not overstretch. First, they are likely to be receiving top-notch intelligence from allies (plus their own partisan networks behind the lines). Second, it's clear Russia had cleared out most of its better forces from the area in the belief it was a "quiet" front. Third, to be overstretched implies there is a risk of a credible counterattack. Nothing from what we are seeing at the moment suggests the Russians are capable of that.
Personally, I think we are looking a plain old collapse of the front.
If it is a collapse of the front - then what? Excuse my strategic ignorance, but what could that imply? Ukraine advancing right to the border? Mass capture of troops?
The location of the collapse of this front implies that the Russian forces around Izyum, which have been attempting to advance to Sloviansk, would be cut off from their supply routes and at risk of being encircled.
Izyum was the first gain made by Russia in the east after withdrawing from the north around Kyiv. For them to lose it now, and all the troops there, would then have further implications for the entire front line across the Donbas.
It's not clear where a new front line could be established. I didn't expect the Ukrainians to make it to Kupyiansk. At some point we would expect the Ukrainian advance to run out of reserves and impetus and need to pause before they could move again, but the situation looks pretty dire for the Russian Army now. The effect on morale will be horrendous. No soldier wants to die, but dying in a lost cause feels particularly futile to most, and so the willingness to fight may evaporate.
Yes quite. The collapse in morale could be much worse than the collapse in strategic position
Indeed. To prop up morale may be why the Russian government is floating the idea of a referendum in the Luhansk region on joining Russia. Then the war stops being about "the allies".
Or I should say it WAS floating the idea. It may be backtracking. See two articles today from TASS:
I am genuinely interested in why a particular activity not going ahead is appropriate (or it going ahead inappropriate).
There is no appropriate, or inappropriate, either decision is fine.
For many people the Queen was emotionally like a Grandmother. Our kids saw the news with us and said unprompted that they were sad the Queen died and that it reminded them of the death of [my] Nanna recently. Again this morning they were talking about it.
What people do after a death is up to them, people react differently. Some people like to postpone things, others don't. The FA have made their choice, that's their responsibility and their right to do so. Other sports have made their choice, again that's their responsibility and their right.
So long as nobody is mandating others can't do what they want to do, there's not an issue. If anyone wants to play football this weekend they can, it just won't be under the banner of the FA if they do.
Yeah I get that but why is it a mark of respect or disrespect to do or not do something. What is the intrinsic respectness of it.
There is an intrinsic respectness tho. If a clown, poodle and penis puppet festival was originally planned for the Mall this afternoon, do you think it should go ahead if they can find enough participants?
No. Obviously not. So then you agree: some respect and decorum is required, observed by all
It’s not going to be fun, either. A very important person has died. Possibly the most famous person in the world: and a person respected by tens of millions
We are in for a period of compulsory dull mourning. I suggest that if we didn’t do this we would feel the negative psychological after effects for decades
Mum is dead. We honour her by being bored, listless and sad for a while. But if we did coke and went to the Maldives we’d feel worse later on
Bring on the clown, poodle and penis puppets, say I.
What about those puppets detracts in any way from the feeling of sadness or respect or sense of loss that people may feel.
Because 98% of sane people would feel revulsion at a clown, poodle, and penis puppet show on the Mall this afternoon
As would you
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
And we can't microwave our way through it- it happens at the pace it happens. That's not really where we are as a culture.
It was the strange thing about yesterday afternoon. One one hand, everyone knew something was up and probably had a shrewd idea what had already happened. It was definitely right to get the choreographic ducks in a row before making the announcement, but it led to that odd interval of dead/not dead, like Schrodinger's poor cat.
Wasn't an issue in the past, because there wasn't acres of rolling screentime to fill.
I must admit, I've always rather enjoyed the bits between death and funeral of an elderly relative. Death hss happened. Whatever you're doing can stop, this is more important. And the family come together, and there are tears, but also joy snd laughter and food and drink because it is good to see these people. And then a few days later, the funeral happens. And there are big tears, but afterwards laughter, and things are better. And tears are now streaminh unbidden down my cheeks at the memories of family funerals. Anyway, yes, it's the way it goes. Not sure how we do this with 67 million people though.
If there was one thing that typified the Queen's approach to pretty much everything it was that you carry on.
Which is what the rest of us should be doing. Not all this cancellation nonsense. By all means pay tribute, have minutes' silences etc but there is no reason for everything to go into suspended animation. Those preparing the funeral are doing their job and will do it magnificently I expect. The rest of us can do ours, including the politicians.
The energy bills aren't going to go away. We need to understand the plan announced yesterday and what it means for us all and how it is to be paid for. The Queen's death should not mean that the government avoids scrutiny or challenge. There are plenty of other issues which are not going to wait until the funeral or the coronation or whatever.
Nothing will more undermine support for a monarchy than claims that the proper functioning of government including all the tough bits which the executive may not like are somehow disrespectful to a dead monarch, especially one who made service and duty her calling card.
None of this stops people mourning or feeling sad or whatever. But often at a time of change or sadness it is the routines of daily life and the fact that you still have responsibilities to others which can provide structure and help, a scaffolding to stop grief overwhelming. That applies to people. And countries too.
The funeral will be a day to stop and remember and honour. But we don't need to turn into a catatonic state between now and then or even afterwards. I hope we don't anyway.
Spot on. Parliament has been on hold for 3 months for a leadership election, it sounds like that will be extended further. A few days later after they return they will stop work for another month for party conferences! It is all ridiculous that so little work can get done when we are in an economic crisis and proxy war.
It is the opposite of the Queens stoic and hard working approach, adjusting to so many different scenarios through her reign, but all with a work ethic and a determination to keep calm and carry on.
Truss should really, at an appropriate moment, announce cancellation of the conference recess
Ha, yes a cancellation I would support! Never going to happen though, because the people who like going to them are the movers and shakers, not football fans.
They will be cancelled because the TUC one has been cancelled and the LibDem one will be in the funeral week; and neither of the big two will want to lose the moral high ground. Politics.
What odds they extend the recess the other side of the calendar instead? After all there is only 3 weeks between returning from the Conference recess in October and another recess in November, why not take that time off as well?
When a monarch of 70 years dies I don't think it's outrageous to have a short period where things slow down, maybe even stop, but this mass cancellation of things (inc even the weather forecast) for days on end is looking a touch silly imo. It's not per the government guidance either - that basically says use your discretion and particularly think about maybe not doing XYZ on the day of the funeral. Can't say I'm personally that bothered about it, I like a nice interregnum, a time out from the ebb and flow, it's why I like motorway service stations, but I can see why some might be rather pissed off.
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Yes. Religions have these elaborate rituals for very good reasons. They have evolved - culturally - to be socially and emotionally satisfying, consoling, soothing
We are in mourning as a nation. There it is
In a year we will forget the annoying fact that little Sally-Ann’s football match got cancelled, we will remember that everything stopped as we marked the death of the 96-year-old Queen, and we will feel a bit better knowing that we all did this together
But everything hasn't stopped. It's all going on very much as usual. Nowhere's closed AFAICT. No one has a day off work or school. No one's dressed in black. Footy games have been cancelled. The government has decided to avoid scrutiny. And the TV and radio are worse even than usual. That's about it. Not sure how any of that is respectful. Or constitutes mourning. It's daily life, just a bit shitter in a few annoying ways. It's what she'd have wanted.
That US academic who wished the Queen a painful death has gained about 60k followers on Twitter since yesterday.
However she has also gained 100k haters who will be watching her constantly, and plaguing her and stalking her
I bet she will leave social media in a year or two
Muting people on Twitter, as I said earlier, should be the default for people you find objectionable. Starves them of attention of enough do it and there’s no way for them to know they’re screaming into the void, unlike blocking.
When a monarch of 70 years dies I don't think it's outrageous to have a short period where things slow down, maybe even stop, but this mass cancellation of things (inc even the weather forecast) for days on end is looking a touch silly imo. It's not per the government guidance either - that basically says use your discretion and particularly think about maybe not doing XYZ on the day of the funeral. Can't say I'm personally that bothered about it, I like a nice interregnum, a time out from the ebb and flow, it's why I like motorway service stations, but I can see why some might be rather pissed off.
I like people watching in service stations I eat in or drink my coffee there for that reason. You see all of humanity.
That US academic who wished the Queen a painful death has gained about 60k followers on Twitter since yesterday.
At the cost of likely being sacked from her job she has gained a few far left fanatics. Indeed most of the vast number of tweets to her yesterday were anti her comments
Truss I thought handled the events of yesterday well. They obviously will dominate buy she combined paying tribute to our lost Queen with welcoming our new King.
Luckily for her she also got her plans for an energy bill cap in before the news broke
Plus the restart of fracking.
I think the tories are going to need to be very careful about how they sell that one though.
British voters these days want cheap gas without fracking near them, just as they want great public services with low taxes, lots of new property but no development where they live, low government debt but lots of spending, and free speech but censorship of opinions they disagree with.
I suspect the fracking will quietly disappear...
Protecting everybody from the vagaries of the gas market seems odd for a government that wants fracking, to be sure.
You mean, encouraging p[eople to invest in dodgy and futile projects?
Private companies drilling for oil and gas don't know what they are doing?
Surprising then, that they are making such vast sums of money that some want windfall taxes on those profits.
They aren't, at least not in the UK. Did you never notice that not one of the O&G companies that does North Sea drilling, nor even conventional O&G drilling onshore, has shown any interest in fracking in the UK? It is all being done by companies you had never heard of a few years ago. Indeed most of them didn't even exist 15 years ago.
The regular O&G companies which are making all that money have more sense than to invest in fracking.
I'm guessing fracking is to geology what Springtime for Hitler was to musical entertainment. As long as it loses money no-one is too surprised and the producers (sorry, The Producers) clean up. It's when profits are expected that investors get restive.
Oh I think the investors expect profits. They are either just being poorly advised or the very slight chance of getting a massive return outweighs the considerable risks of getting no return at all.
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Try telling that to young black men pursued by plod or those using foodbanks or those waiting for operations or....
Now look, I am (was) a conservative. I love all that ceremonial shit. But if we are going to mark a watershed I need to know that we have shed the water. I don't think we have. Britain is just the same as it was on Thursday morning and the monarchy, on its own terms, and as noted by @Casino_Royale also, thinks the same.
Don't worry. After a fortnight of this, the nation will quietly and unanimously resolve a no fuss arrangement next time around.
Truss I thought handled the events of yesterday well. They obviously will dominate buy she combined paying tribute to our lost Queen with welcoming our new King.
Luckily for her she also got her plans for an energy bill cap in before the news broke
Plus the restart of fracking.
I think the tories are going to need to be very careful about how they sell that one though.
British voters these days want cheap gas without fracking near them, just as they want great public services with low taxes, lots of new property but no development where they live, low government debt but lots of spending, and free speech but censorship of opinions they disagree with.
I suspect the fracking will quietly disappear...
Protecting everybody from the vagaries of the gas market seems odd for a government that wants fracking, to be sure.
You mean, encouraging p[eople to invest in dodgy and futile projects?
Private companies drilling for oil and gas don't know what they are doing?
Surprising then, that they are making such vast sums of money that some want windfall taxes on those profits.
They aren't, at least not in the UK. Did you never notice that not one of the O&G companies that does North Sea drilling, nor even conventional O&G drilling onshore, has shown any interest in fracking in the UK? It is all being done by companies you had never heard of a few years ago. Indeed most of them didn't even exist 15 years ago.
The regular O&G companies which are making all that money have more sense than to invest in fracking.
I'm guessing fracking is to geology what Springtime for Hitler was to musical entertainment. As long as it loses money no-one is too surprised and the producers (sorry, The Producers) clean up. It's when profits are expected that investors get restive.
Oh I think the investors expect profits. They are either just being poorly advised or the very slight chance of getting a massive return outweighs the considerable risks of getting no return at all.
Like biotech.
Is it in your opinion possible for fracking to work - apologies if I haven't followed and you've answered before.
For all those pathetic bitches complaining about Excess Mourning - get over it. I am now restricting my planned day long burning hot clifftop hike to just an hour, between drinks. Because it is the right thing to do
Also: this is as bad as it gets. We will never see another death like this, not in the lives of anyone here
So you will be bored and frustrated for a fortnight. So be it
She died less than 24 hours ago. She's probably one of the most significant human beings of the last 100 years.
Yes, there's a potential boundary in time and temperament for OTT excessiveness, and mawkishness, and this absolutely isn't that.
Contrarians who think we should just ignore it and life should carry on as if nothing has happened either don't have a heart or a brain.
For all those pathetic bitches complaining about Excess Mourning - get over it. I am now restricting my planned day long burning hot clifftop hike to just an hour, between drinks. Because it is the right thing to do
Also: this is as bad as it gets. We will never see another death like this, not in the lives of anyone here
So you will be bored and frustrated for a fortnight. So be it
Are people in Portugal interested in the latest UK developments?
This is a rather charming story. Particularly the bit about his flattering the Queen over her age.
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/when-duke-ellington-made-a-record ...The recent mania for turning music into non-fungible tokens (NFTs) is just the latest iteration of this quest. Back in 2015, the Wu-Tang Clan made just a single copy of its seventh album, and packaged it in a jewel-studded silver box. We never learned how much financier Martin Shkreli paid for it back then, but the Department of Justice later seized it, and sold it for $4 million—making this the most expensive musical work in history.
But Duke Ellington did the exact same thing in 1959, and without any desire to make money. He created a unique album solely for the pleasure of giving it to Queen Elizabeth. With the help of Billy Strayhorn, he composed The Queen’s Suite, had one record manufactured—and sent it directly to Buckingham Palace, solely intended for Her Majesty’s ears....
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Try telling that to young black men pursued by plod or those using foodbanks or those waiting for operations or....
Now look, I am (was) a conservative. I love all that ceremonial shit. But if we are going to mark a watershed I need to know that we have shed the water. I don't think we have. Britain is just the same as it was on Thursday morning and the monarchy, on its own terms, and as noted by @Casino_Royale also, thinks the same.
Don't worry. After a fortnight of this, the nation will quietly and unanimously resolve a no fuss arrangement next time around.
Impossible, every monarch by definition lies in state, has a state funeral and a coronation. Indeed most foreign Presidents also lie in state, have a state funeral when they die with a grand inauguration for the new one
That US academic who wished the Queen a painful death has gained about 60k followers on Twitter since yesterday.
At the cost of likely being sacked from her job she has gained a few far left fanatics. Indeed most of the vast number of tweets to her yesterday were anti her comments
When has an academic in the English speaking world lost theor job for expressing extreme left views? I'd more expect she'll get a promotion.
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The fast moving tactics of the Ukranians are inspiring, especially after the stalemate of the last 3 months.
As long as they have fuel and amunition they can easily pierce the Russian lines which have been stretched thin to provide additional support to Kherson and then wreak chaos in the supply lines behind the Russian forces. Individual units may find themselves in local difficulties but the effect on the Russian front line units will be devastating. What we need to see are the large scale surrender of units cut off and out of ammunition. At that point the Russian forces may well collapse.
This isn't the end but it is starting to look like the beginning of the end.
If that is true, then it seems to me like a moment of maximum danger with regard to Putin. How will he take such a setback?
Hopefully with a heart attack, but it's a good point that a wounded beast is very dangerous
Ultimately there are any number of ways people will mark this, or not. A massive range of valid reactions. Do or do not, mark or ignore, mourn or not. There are 2 distinct groups who top the irritation tree though. The mourners who tell you how you must mourn, what is your duty, how you must feel, and what it is 'right' that you do or do not and Those that are doing the equivalent of constantly waving their hand in front of your face going 'not touching! Not touching! Im not touching, you have to let me, im entitled to, its allowed' who then bleat when someone snaps their arm in half. He wasnt entitled to do that, but you fucking deserved it.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Try telling that to young black men pursued by plod or those using foodbanks or those waiting for operations or....
Now look, I am (was) a conservative. I love all that ceremonial shit. But if we are going to mark a watershed I need to know that we have shed the water. I don't think we have. Britain is just the same as it was on Thursday morning and the monarchy, on its own terms, and as noted by @Casino_Royale also, thinks the same.
Do you not have parties to celebrate milestone birthdays? The new year? Despite 49 y 11 mo and 50 y 1 d not feeling or being very different from each other?
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
You can't say he can talk about this issue but not about that one. If the head of state is going to take sides on things, the head of state needs to be a political figure i.e. elected. An unelected head of state needs to remain scrupulously neutral on everything, like his predecessor. It evidently isn't easy to do. Otherwise you will have no recourse when he starts taking sides on issues you don't want him to.
I am genuinely interested in why a particular activity not going ahead is appropriate (or it going ahead inappropriate).
There is no appropriate, or inappropriate, either decision is fine.
For many people the Queen was emotionally like a Grandmother. Our kids saw the news with us and said unprompted that they were sad the Queen died and that it reminded them of the death of [my] Nanna recently. Again this morning they were talking about it.
What people do after a death is up to them, people react differently. Some people like to postpone things, others don't. The FA have made their choice, that's their responsibility and their right to do so. Other sports have made their choice, again that's their responsibility and their right.
So long as nobody is mandating others can't do what they want to do, there's not an issue. If anyone wants to play football this weekend they can, it just won't be under the banner of the FA if they do.
Yeah I get that but why is it a mark of respect or disrespect to do or not do something. What is the intrinsic respectness of it.
I think the implication is that, instead of participating in normal activity, one would instead use the time to reflect on the life of duty of the Queen and resolve to better follow her example, etc, etc. So the implication is that you would do something else, to show respect, rather than the things you would normally do.
Not something I am doing myself, but not inherently ridiculous.
Not inherently ridiculous at all. Like having a sabbath. Time should be spent for contemplation. But we know that's not how it works for 96% of people for whom Sunday is a good time to go shopping or to the park or play softball or hockey or any number of other activities. It fits a narrative that no longer exists imo.
True, but ultimately it's simply a gesture by organisers commemorating for others, so they dont have to if they dont wish to.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Yes. Religions have these elaborate rituals for very good reasons. They have evolved - culturally - to be socially and emotionally satisfying, consoling, soothing
We are in mourning as a nation. There it is
In a year we will forget the annoying fact that little Sally-Ann’s football match got cancelled, we will remember that everything stopped as we marked the death of the 96-year-old Queen, and we will feel a bit better knowing that we all did this together
There is a scene in “The Ladykillers” where Mrs Wilberforce recounts a wonderful birthday party she had which was suddenly cut short when the news came in of the death of the “old queen”. This discussion reminds me a bit of that.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
There is a scene in “The Ladykillers” where Mrs Wilberforce recounts a wonderful birthday party she had which was suddenly cut short when the news came in of the death of the “old queen”. This discussion reminds me a bit of that.
This is of course likely to be the last death of a Queen that any of us will ever see
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The fast moving tactics of the Ukranians are inspiring, especially after the stalemate of the last 3 months.
As long as they have fuel and amunition they can easily pierce the Russian lines which have been stretched thin to provide additional support to Kherson and then wreak chaos in the supply lines behind the Russian forces. Individual units may find themselves in local difficulties but the effect on the Russian front line units will be devastating. What we need to see are the large scale surrender of units cut off and out of ammunition. At that point the Russian forces may well collapse.
This isn't the end but it is starting to look like the beginning of the end.
If that is true, then it seems to me like a moment of maximum danger with regard to Putin. How will he take such a setback?
I was saying this a week or so ago in the context of Kherson (which is starting to look like a rather brilliant feint). If Russia suffers a real and undeniable set back involving thousands of men I think Putin will be in serious danger of literal defenestration but that will be a moment of genuine peril for the world, not just Russia. I do not think that the risks of a comprehensive defeat for Russia, much though I wish for it, are being taken nearly seriously enough. The chances of a nuclear war are not insignificant.
Yeah I was making a similar point. It could be summarised as 'careful what you wish for'. What concerns me is that there is the widespread promotion of and acceptance of the idea that we need to 'beat back Putin' like we are just teaching a lesson to some kind of playground bully. Even though the story works on one level, it is a highly superficial level.
It's a start though. He's already irrational so the first step needs to be made regardless since he might act crazy no matter what. Just as you say there needs to be wariness about what might then happen.
There is a scene in “The Ladykillers” where Mrs Wilberforce recounts a wonderful birthday party she had which was suddenly cut short when the news came in of the death of the “old queen”. This discussion reminds me a bit of that.
This is of course likely to be the last death of a Queen that any of us will ever see
A reigning Queen. I wish Camilla a long life but she’s about 25 years older than me.
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The fast moving tactics of the Ukranians are inspiring, especially after the stalemate of the last 3 months.
As long as they have fuel and amunition they can easily pierce the Russian lines which have been stretched thin to provide additional support to Kherson and then wreak chaos in the supply lines behind the Russian forces. Individual units may find themselves in local difficulties but the effect on the Russian front line units will be devastating. What we need to see are the large scale surrender of units cut off and out of ammunition. At that point the Russian forces may well collapse.
This isn't the end but it is starting to look like the beginning of the end.
If that is true, then it seems to me like a moment of maximum danger with regard to Putin. How will he take such a setback?
Hopefully with a heart attack, but it's a good point that a wounded beast is very dangerous
Part of me wondered if him sending condolences for the Queen was him reaching out and testing the waters on how he would be received. Maybe gets an invite to the funeral and has a mini-summit afterwards whilst all the big knobs in town in one place.
He didn’t have to or wasn’t expected to say anything under the circumstances.
The other half thinks he was aiming it to his home audience “look guys, when someone old and not in the best of health has lovingly devoted such a chunk of their life to a country then it’s time to realise how great they are, remember all the good things, they are missed when they are gone. Please don’t push me out of a window.”
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
You can't say he can talk about this issue but not about that one. If the head of state is going to take sides on things, the head of state needs to be a political figure i.e. elected. An unelected head of state needs to remain scrupulously neutral on everything, like his predecessor. It evidently isn't easy to do. Otherwise you will have no recourse when he starts taking sides on issues you don't want him to.
But we're all environmentalists these days. Charles can advocate 'a better environment for all' without stepping on toes and leave the dirty details to the pols to sort out. Business as usual, in other words.
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The Ukrainians obviously have to be very careful.
However, they are probably several pointers to say it's not overstretch. First, they are likely to be receiving top-notch intelligence from allies (plus their own partisan networks behind the lines). Second, it's clear Russia had cleared out most of its better forces from the area in the belief it was a "quiet" front. Third, to be overstretched implies there is a risk of a credible counterattack. Nothing from what we are seeing at the moment suggests the Russians are capable of that.
Personally, I think we are looking a plain old collapse of the front.
If it is a collapse of the front - then what? Excuse my strategic ignorance, but what could that imply? Ukraine advancing right to the border? Mass capture of troops?
The location of the collapse of this front implies that the Russian forces around Izyum, which have been attempting to advance to Sloviansk, would be cut off from their supply routes and at risk of being encircled.
Izyum was the first gain made by Russia in the east after withdrawing from the north around Kyiv. For them to lose it now, and all the troops there, would then have further implications for the entire front line across the Donbas.
It's not clear where a new front line could be established. I didn't expect the Ukrainians to make it to Kupyiansk. At some point we would expect the Ukrainian advance to run out of reserves and impetus and need to pause before they could move again, but the situation looks pretty dire for the Russian Army now. The effect on morale will be horrendous. No soldier wants to die, but dying in a lost cause feels particularly futile to most, and so the willingness to fight may evaporate.
Yes quite. The collapse in morale could be much worse than the collapse in strategic position
Indeed. To prop up morale may be why the Russian government is floating the idea of a referendum in the Luhansk region on joining Russia. Then the war stops being about "the allies".
Or I should say it WAS floating the idea. It may be backtracking. See two articles today from TASS:
If I were a Russian fan (which there were plenty to start with i assume) in those areas I'd be worried.
Not necessarily that Ukraine will liberate those areas, though I hope they do. But because if Russia suffers reversals they might get abandoned, or at the least will not benefit as the area remains small and on the front line.
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Try telling that to young black men pursued by plod or those using foodbanks or those waiting for operations or....
Now look, I am (was) a conservative. I love all that ceremonial shit. But if we are going to mark a watershed I need to know that we have shed the water. I don't think we have. Britain is just the same as it was on Thursday morning and the monarchy, on its own terms, and as noted by @Casino_Royale also, thinks the same.
Don't worry. After a fortnight of this, the nation will quietly and unanimously resolve a no fuss arrangement next time around.
Impossible, every monarch by definition lies in state, has a state funeral and a coronation. Indeed most foreign Presidents also lie in state, have a state funeral when they die with a grand inauguration for the new one
Indeed, some inaugurations are grander than coronations. Didnt the King of Spain just get a sash put on?
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
You can't say he can talk about this issue but not about that one. If the head of state is going to take sides on things, the head of state needs to be a political figure i.e. elected. An unelected head of state needs to remain scrupulously neutral on everything, like his predecessor. It evidently isn't easy to do. Otherwise you will have no recourse when he starts taking sides on issues you don't want him to.
But we're all environmentalists these days. Charles can advocate 'a better environment for all' without stepping on toes and leave the dirty details to the pols to sort out. Business as usual, in other words.
He's also being advocating multiculturalism (in the lower case meaning) for years. Lots of outreach to minority communities. Remember his suggestion of "Defender of Faith(s)"?
Read Freud on Mourning. He’s very good. This bit - the dull, do nothing, be sad, wear black bit - is an important part of the healing process of grief. So we do it
In a similar vein
even if you’re a staunch anti-monarchist I think a period of mourning is important as an opportunity to reflect on and ritually mark a watershed in british history. giving people a way to process major events is much healthier than just barrelling on as normal
there should have been much more ritual acknowledgement of the pandemic. penitential processions, acts of thanksgiving, etc all very important during and after the black death to make sense of cataclysmic experience
Try telling that to young black men pursued by plod or those using foodbanks or those waiting for operations or....
Now look, I am (was) a conservative. I love all that ceremonial shit. But if we are going to mark a watershed I need to know that we have shed the water. I don't think we have. Britain is just the same as it was on Thursday morning and the monarchy, on its own terms, and as noted by @Casino_Royale also, thinks the same.
Do you not have parties to celebrate milestone birthdays? The new year? Despite 49 y 11 mo and 50 y 1 d not feeling or being very different from each other?
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
You can't say he can talk about this issue but not about that one. If the head of state is going to take sides on things, the head of state needs to be a political figure i.e. elected. An unelected head of state needs to remain scrupulously neutral on everything, like his predecessor. It evidently isn't easy to do. Otherwise you will have no recourse when he starts taking sides on issues you don't want him to.
But we're all environmentalists these days. Charles can advocate 'a better environment for all' without stepping on toes and leave the dirty details to the pols to sort out. Business as usual, in other words.
He will act on the advice of his ministers. So when they want to amplify the message that they are taking environmental issues seriously they can give him a text which he can read enthusiastically.
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
Possible that will be the defining image of this period. Republicanism defeated for at least another reign by one kiss.
Millions can print the image out, stick it on their wall, and solemnly go "ain't the king lovely?" as they rub their hands together to keep warm this winter during power blackouts.
Was the king's loyal subject who kissed him one of the throng who booed Meghan in Manchester four days ago?
Or perhaps she has scrofula from TB and thought that touching the sacred monarch would cure her?
I am genuinely interested in why a particular activity not going ahead is appropriate (or it going ahead inappropriate).
There is no appropriate, or inappropriate, either decision is fine.
For many people the Queen was emotionally like a Grandmother. Our kids saw the news with us and said unprompted that they were sad the Queen died and that it reminded them of the death of [my] Nanna recently. Again this morning they were talking about it.
What people do after a death is up to them, people react differently. Some people like to postpone things, others don't. The FA have made their choice, that's their responsibility and their right to do so. Other sports have made their choice, again that's their responsibility and their right.
So long as nobody is mandating others can't do what they want to do, there's not an issue. If anyone wants to play football this weekend they can, it just won't be under the banner of the FA if they do.
Yeah I get that but why is it a mark of respect or disrespect to do or not do something. What is the intrinsic respectness of it.
I think the implication is that, instead of participating in normal activity, one would instead use the time to reflect on the life of duty of the Queen and resolve to better follow her example, etc, etc. So the implication is that you would do something else, to show respect, rather than the things you would normally do.
Not something I am doing myself, but not inherently ridiculous.
Not inherently ridiculous at all. Like having a sabbath. Time should be spent for contemplation. But we know that's not how it works for 96% of people for whom Sunday is a good time to go shopping or to the park or play softball or hockey or any number of other activities. It fits a narrative that no longer exists imo.
True, but ultimately it's simply a gesture by organisers commemorating for others, so they dont have to if they dont wish to.
Well yes and no. The organisers are saying "go home and contemplate". A bit like them saying "go home and pray".
I doubt too many will do either instead of heading out to the footie or their hockey match.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
You can't say he can talk about this issue but not about that one. If the head of state is going to take sides on things, the head of state needs to be a political figure i.e. elected. An unelected head of state needs to remain scrupulously neutral on everything, like his predecessor. It evidently isn't easy to do. Otherwise you will have no recourse when he starts taking sides on issues you don't want him to.
Not neutral. Like the civil service it’s his role to follow the lead of the elected Government.
The funeral is going to be an excellent day for test and tune (and hooning) on public roads so I am conflicted over whether I want it to piss down or not.
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
Possible that will be the defining image of this period. Republicanism defeated for at least another reign by one kiss.
Millions can print the image out, stick it on their wall, and solemnly go "ain't the king lovely?" as they rub their hands together to keep warm this winter during power blackouts.
Was the king's loyal subject who kissed him one of the throng who booed Meghan in Manchester four days ago?
Or perhaps she has scrofula from TB and thought that touching the sacred monarch would cure her?
Images have power and that image says that Charles is now the nation's lovable Grandpa, however absurd that would have seemed a week ago. Republicans will keep on losing when they expect the Royals to do the job of arguing the case for a Republic for them.
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
A very endearing moment when a lady in the crowd gives Charles a kiss on the cheek .
Although I expect in future he’ll be much more guarded in commenting on many issues I’d expect and want him to continue to talk about the environment.
You can't say he can talk about this issue but not about that one. If the head of state is going to take sides on things, the head of state needs to be a political figure i.e. elected. An unelected head of state needs to remain scrupulously neutral on everything, like his predecessor. It evidently isn't easy to do. Otherwise you will have no recourse when he starts taking sides on issues you don't want him to.
But we're all environmentalists these days. Charles can advocate 'a better environment for all' without stepping on toes and leave the dirty details to the pols to sort out. Business as usual, in other words.
He's also being advocating multiculturalism (in the lower case meaning) for years. Lots of outreach to minority communities. Remember his suggestion of "Defender of Faith(s)"?
I'd like to see Fiderum Defensor on our coinage for a change (ha ha) but it abbreviates to Fid Def in the usual way.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Of course, the SSB didn't cover large areas of countryside with gas/oil well headers and roads. Did you not see the images posted on PB of typical production areas?
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
There's a Hornblower short story where he gets given command of Nelson's funeral barge, which starts sinking.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
Priceless deadpan from the judge dismissing: ...Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to distill it here...
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
Fracking is safe, its done in many places around the world already.
Truss I thought handled the events of yesterday well. They obviously will dominate buy she combined paying tribute to our lost Queen with welcoming our new King.
Luckily for her she also got her plans for an energy bill cap in before the news broke
Plus the restart of fracking.
I think the tories are going to need to be very careful about how they sell that one though.
British voters these days want cheap gas without fracking near them, just as they want great public services with low taxes, lots of new property but no development where they live, low government debt but lots of spending, and free speech but censorship of opinions they disagree with.
I suspect the fracking will quietly disappear...
Protecting everybody from the vagaries of the gas market seems odd for a government that wants fracking, to be sure.
You mean, encouraging p[eople to invest in dodgy and futile projects?
Private companies drilling for oil and gas don't know what they are doing?
Surprising then, that they are making such vast sums of money that some want windfall taxes on those profits.
They aren't, at least not in the UK. Did you never notice that not one of the O&G companies that does North Sea drilling, nor even conventional O&G drilling onshore, has shown any interest in fracking in the UK? It is all being done by companies you had never heard of a few years ago. Indeed most of them didn't even exist 15 years ago.
The regular O&G companies which are making all that money have more sense than to invest in fracking.
I'm guessing fracking is to geology what Springtime for Hitler was to musical entertainment. As long as it loses money no-one is too surprised and the producers (sorry, The Producers) clean up. It's when profits are expected that investors get restive.
Oh I think the investors expect profits. They are either just being poorly advised or the very slight chance of getting a massive return outweighs the considerable risks of getting no return at all.
Like biotech.
Is it in your opinion possible for fracking to work - apologies if I haven't followed and you've answered before.
Not on current knowledge. It can work in other countries with vast areas of uniform geology but as with everything else, in Britain the Geology is just like our history and our society - a hotch potch of huge numbers of different varieties of rocks and terrains, often quite limited in extent and all horribly messed about by successive tectonic events. The closing of the Iapetus, the collision of Africa into Europe, the opening of the Atlantic and hundreds more - all have left their imprint on or rocks (how many people know that the Welsh coal fields only exist in the form they do because of the event that formed the Alps, or that bits of central Scotland started life in Siberia?)
What this means is that the volumes available, even if we were willing to cover the countryside in the thousands of wells necessary to exploit them, probably aren't economic anyway. Most observers from outside the fracking industry accept this.
There is a chance - not a tiny one but a small one - that they are wrong, but it seems unlikely at the moment.
Its a shame because I have no moral or political objection to fracking and if it were economic it would mean a job for life for me. But having looked at it a great deal when deciding whether to move in that direction, I concluded it is not viable as far as we can tell.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
The sane methodology, which has worked historically, is to
1) Set standards. 2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
Truss I thought handled the events of yesterday well. They obviously will dominate buy she combined paying tribute to our lost Queen with welcoming our new King.
Luckily for her she also got her plans for an energy bill cap in before the news broke
Plus the restart of fracking.
I think the tories are going to need to be very careful about how they sell that one though.
British voters these days want cheap gas without fracking near them, just as they want great public services with low taxes, lots of new property but no development where they live, low government debt but lots of spending, and free speech but censorship of opinions they disagree with.
I suspect the fracking will quietly disappear...
Protecting everybody from the vagaries of the gas market seems odd for a government that wants fracking, to be sure.
You mean, encouraging p[eople to invest in dodgy and futile projects?
Private companies drilling for oil and gas don't know what they are doing?
Surprising then, that they are making such vast sums of money that some want windfall taxes on those profits.
They aren't, at least not in the UK. Did you never notice that not one of the O&G companies that does North Sea drilling, nor even conventional O&G drilling onshore, has shown any interest in fracking in the UK? It is all being done by companies you had never heard of a few years ago. Indeed most of them didn't even exist 15 years ago.
The regular O&G companies which are making all that money have more sense than to invest in fracking.
I'm guessing fracking is to geology what Springtime for Hitler was to musical entertainment. As long as it loses money no-one is too surprised and the producers (sorry, The Producers) clean up. It's when profits are expected that investors get restive.
Oh I think the investors expect profits. They are either just being poorly advised or the very slight chance of getting a massive return outweighs the considerable risks of getting no return at all.
Like biotech.
Is it in your opinion possible for fracking to work - apologies if I haven't followed and you've answered before.
Not on current knowledge. It can work in other countries with vast areas of uniform geology but as with everything else, in Britain the Geology is just like our history and our society - a hotch potch of huge numbers of different varieties of rocks and terrains, often quite limited in extent and all horribly messed about by successive tectonic events. The closing of the Iapetus, the collision of Africa into Europe, the opening of the Atlantic and hundreds more - all have left their imprint on or rocks (how many people know that the Welsh coal fields only exist in the form they do because of the event that formed the Alps, or that bits of central Scotland started life in Siberia?)
What this means is that the volumes available, even if we were willing to cover the countryside in the thousands of wells necessary to exploit them, probably aren't economic anyway. Most observers from outside the fracking industry accept this.
There is a chance - not a tiny one but a small one - that they are wrong, but it seems unlikely at the moment.
Its a shame because I have no moral or political objection to fracking and if it were economic it would mean a job for life for me. But having looked at it a great deal when deciding whether to move in that direction, I concluded it is not viable as far as we can tell.
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
That is a fantastic story. Was he in the RN?
Yes, he was. Started as a boy seaman and finished as Lieutenant Commander and Provost Marshal Navy. He was at HMS Excellent at the time, but the coffin bearers were from HMS Mercury (specific request from Mountbatten). Mercury wsa a comms base, so they were all radio operators, engineers, etc. And shit at marching Only his second best story from his time in the Navy: saying No to Maggie T and getting his way was the best. A story for another time.
Priceless deadpan from the judge dismissing: ...Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to distill it here...
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The fast moving tactics of the Ukranians are inspiring, especially after the stalemate of the last 3 months.
As long as they have fuel and amunition they can easily pierce the Russian lines which have been stretched thin to provide additional support to Kherson and then wreak chaos in the supply lines behind the Russian forces. Individual units may find themselves in local difficulties but the effect on the Russian front line units will be devastating. What we need to see are the large scale surrender of units cut off and out of ammunition. At that point the Russian forces may well collapse.
This isn't the end but it is starting to look like the beginning of the end.
If that is true, then it seems to me like a moment of maximum danger with regard to Putin. How will he take such a setback?
I was saying this a week or so ago in the context of Kherson (which is starting to look like a rather brilliant feint). If Russia suffers a real and undeniable set back involving thousands of men I think Putin will be in serious danger of literal defenestration but that will be a moment of genuine peril for the world, not just Russia. I do not think that the risks of a comprehensive defeat for Russia, much though I wish for it, are being taken nearly seriously enough. The chances of a nuclear war are not insignificant.
Yeah I was making a similar point. It could be summarised as 'careful what you wish for'. What concerns me is that there is the widespread promotion of and acceptance of the idea that we need to 'beat back Putin' like we are just teaching a lesson to some kind of playground bully. Even though the story works on one level, it is a highly superficial level.
It's a start though. He's already irrational so the first step needs to be made regardless since he might act crazy no matter what. Just as you say there needs to be wariness about what might then happen.
I wouldn't describe him as 'irrational' personally, after reading Fiona Hill's book on him (which I highly recommend). I think he is a rational actor but he has flawed information, and an almost insurmountable amount of distrust towards the US and Britain, some of it unfortunately justified, due primarily to events in the 00's. If he goes I fear mainly for the Russian people because he has kept the place in some kind of order, and there just isn't a successor. He has been around for a long time and there hasn't been much succession planning. All the indications are that there is no appetite for western liberal democracy outside elite circles in Moscow/St Petersburg. The probability is that the place would descend in to early 1990's style chaos with truly unknown consequences for everyone. This time around though there would be a lot more hostility towards the west and NATO as it would be blamed for the situation in Ukraine. So who knows where that would lead.
Edit/reminder... I don't support Putin and what he has done in Ukraine in any way.
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
That is a fantastic story. Was he in the RN?
Yes, he was. Started as a boy seaman and finished as Lieutenant Commander and Provost Marshal Navy. He was at HMS Excellent at the time, but the coffin bearers were from HMS Mercury (specific request from Mountbatten). Mercury wsa a comms base, so they were all radio operators, engineers, etc. And shit at marching Only his second best story from his time in the Navy: saying No to Maggie T and getting his way was the best. A story for another time.
Fantastic. Looking forward to the next instalment.
On the question of what time the Queen died I believe it would have been shortly before Liz Truss was told in the commons and I believe the note did affirm the Queen had died.
I expect as part of London Bridge planning that the PM would be informed almost straight away and before the media
I am genuinely interested in why a particular activity not going ahead is appropriate (or it going ahead inappropriate).
There is no appropriate, or inappropriate, either decision is fine.
For many people the Queen was emotionally like a Grandmother. Our kids saw the news with us and said unprompted that they were sad the Queen died and that it reminded them of the death of [my] Nanna recently. Again this morning they were talking about it.
What people do after a death is up to them, people react differently. Some people like to postpone things, others don't. The FA have made their choice, that's their responsibility and their right to do so. Other sports have made their choice, again that's their responsibility and their right.
So long as nobody is mandating others can't do what they want to do, there's not an issue. If anyone wants to play football this weekend they can, it just won't be under the banner of the FA if they do.
Yeah I get that but why is it a mark of respect or disrespect to do or not do something. What is the intrinsic respectness of it.
There is an intrinsic respectness tho. If a clown, poodle and penis puppet festival was originally planned for the Mall this afternoon, do you think it should go ahead if they can find enough participants?
No. Obviously not. So then you agree: some respect and decorum is required, observed by all
It’s not going to be fun, either. A very important person has died. Possibly the most famous person in the world: and a person respected by tens of millions
We are in for a period of compulsory dull mourning. I suggest that if we didn’t do this we would feel the negative psychological after effects for decades
Mum is dead. We honour her by being bored, listless and sad for a while. But if we did coke and went to the Maldives we’d feel worse later on
Bring on the clown, poodle and penis puppets, say I.
What about those puppets detracts in any way from the feeling of sadness or respect or sense of loss that people may feel.
Clown, poodle and penis show in the Mall?
Ok I get Boris is the clown, and Blair is the poodle, but who is the penis?
On the question of what time the Queen died I believe it would have been shortly before Liz Truss was told in the commons and I believe the note did affirm the Queen had died.
I expect as part of London Bridge planning that the PM would be informed almost straight away and before the media
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
Fracking is safe, its done in many places around the world already.
As part of the report, EPA identified certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe, including:
> Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources; > Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; > Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; > Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; > Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and > Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
The sane methodology, which has worked historically, is to
1) Set standards. 2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
It's possible you are more optimistic about all three than I am perhaps.
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
That is a fantastic story. Was he in the RN?
Yes, he was. Started as a boy seaman and finished as Lieutenant Commander and Provost Marshal Navy. He was at HMS Excellent at the time, but the coffin bearers were from HMS Mercury (specific request from Mountbatten). Mercury wsa a comms base, so they were all radio operators, engineers, etc. And shit at marching Only his second best story from his time in the Navy: saying No to Maggie T and getting his way was the best. A story for another time.
Nice story! That was the establishment at East Meon near Petersfield? Well away from the Pompey bases and the drill instructors of HMS Excellent on Whale Island, not coincidentally, I suppose.
A deepish dive into the validity of Trump's claims of executive privilege.
The Absence of Any Executive Privilege by a Former President For National Security Secrets https://www.justsecurity.org/83012/the-absence-of-any-executive-privilege-by-a-former-president-for-national-security-secrets/ ...Trump’s contention is founded on the Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), where the Court concluded that under some circumstances a former president could assert one type of executive privilege, commonly known as the presidential communications privilege. The presidential communications privilege (first recognized by the Court in the 1974 Nixon tapes case) is a qualified privilege applying to confidential deliberative communications between a president and his advisers. The idea is that a president will not be able to get candid advice from subordinates without an assurance this advice will generally remain confidential and that this assurance of confidentiality should not automatically end (or be solely controlled by a successor) when a president leaves office. Indeed, it’s also the type that Justice Brett Kavanaugh discussed in his 2021 opinion suggesting a former president’s view of executive privilege could in some cases trump the incumbent’s view.
Importantly, neither Nixon v. GSA nor Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion suggest that a former president could assert a different type of executive privilege — the so-called “state secrets” privilege which applies to military and diplomatic secrets and which the Court has suggested may be more absolute than the qualified presidential communications privilege. To the contrary, Nixon v. GSA noted that all parties to the case, including former President Nixon, agreed that “the very specific privilege protecting against disclosure of state secrets and sensitive information concerning military or diplomatic matters . . . may be asserted only by an incumbent President” (emphasis added). Thus, the Court contrasted the privilege related to confidentiality of presidential communications with the “privilege relating to the need ‘to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets’” (quoting U.S. v Nixon)....
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
There's a Hornblower short story where he gets given command of Nelson's funeral barge, which starts sinking.
That was Hornblower and the Atropos. One of the later novels, not a short story (albeit it was in common with most Hornblowers, a very short novel).
A Russian army in danger of encirclement? Or Ukrainian overstretch?
The fast moving tactics of the Ukranians are inspiring, especially after the stalemate of the last 3 months.
As long as they have fuel and amunition they can easily pierce the Russian lines which have been stretched thin to provide additional support to Kherson and then wreak chaos in the supply lines behind the Russian forces. Individual units may find themselves in local difficulties but the effect on the Russian front line units will be devastating. What we need to see are the large scale surrender of units cut off and out of ammunition. At that point the Russian forces may well collapse.
This isn't the end but it is starting to look like the beginning of the end.
If that is true, then it seems to me like a moment of maximum danger with regard to Putin. How will he take such a setback?
I was saying this a week or so ago in the context of Kherson (which is starting to look like a rather brilliant feint). If Russia suffers a real and undeniable set back involving thousands of men I think Putin will be in serious danger of literal defenestration but that will be a moment of genuine peril for the world, not just Russia. I do not think that the risks of a comprehensive defeat for Russia, much though I wish for it, are being taken nearly seriously enough. The chances of a nuclear war are not insignificant.
Yeah I was making a similar point. It could be summarised as 'careful what you wish for'. What concerns me is that there is the widespread promotion of and acceptance of the idea that we need to 'beat back Putin' like we are just teaching a lesson to some kind of playground bully. Even though the story works on one level, it is a highly superficial level.
It's a start though. He's already irrational so the first step needs to be made regardless since he might act crazy no matter what. Just as you say there needs to be wariness about what might then happen.
I wouldn't describe him as 'irrational' personally, after reading Fiona Hill's book on him (which I highly recommend). I think he is a rational actor but he has flawed information, and an almost insurmountable amount of distrust towards the US and Britain, some of it unfortunately justified, due primarily to events in the 00's. If he goes I fear mainly for the Russian people because he has kept the place in some kind of order, and there just isn't a successor. He has been around for a long time and there hasn't been much succession planning. All the indications are that there is no appetite for western liberal democracy outside elite circles in Moscow/St Petersburg. The probability is that the place would descend in to early 1990's style chaos with truly unknown consequences for everyone. This time around though there would be a lot more hostility towards the west and NATO as it would be blamed for the situation in Ukraine. So who knows where that would lead.
Edit/reminder... I don't support Putin and what he has done in Ukraine in any way.
I choose irrational due to the reasoning he uses. Like claiming to not want NATO on his border so tries taking over Ukraine, which if it worked would mean a lot more NATO on the larger border.
Now, he was probably just lying about that reason, he advanced so many, but that means one of his publicly stated reasons is entirely illogical and irrational, since it has nothing to do with information other than looking at a map.
I dont mean he's stupid, or that his general paranoid approach does not have brutal logic from his point of view, but some of his avtions cannot be explained that way. Hence so many being convinced he'd never actually invade for instance.
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
There's a Hornblower short story where he gets given command of Nelson's funeral barge, which starts sinking.
That was Hornblower and the Atropos. One of the later novels, not a short story (albeit it was in common with most Hornblowers, a very short novel).
On the question of what time the Queen died I believe it would have been shortly before Liz Truss was told in the commons and I believe the note did affirm the Queen had died.
I expect as part of London Bridge planning that the PM would be informed almost straight away and before the media
The PM is informed by the Queens Private Secretary on a secure line and is the first person outside the family/immediate household and doctors informed. The commons note would have said she is gravely ill and London Bridge was likely. There are no circumstances in which Nadhim Zahawi knew before the PM. She was told at 4.30, just moments before the other commonwealth leaders were informed
1953: coronation, "conquest" of Mount Everest, large jump in TV ownership 1953-54: end of rationing 1955: Tories win general election 1957-59: Harold Macmillan: "You've never had it so good" 1959: Tory landslide in general election
Let's assume it goes 2023: coronation
What else? At the moment I can't see anything that could correspond with the rise in TV ownership that was so important to the whole perception of the 1953 coronation, or with the end of rationing, or with the general feel of that epoch. Nobody can eat or warm themselves by TV memories of an archetypally "entitled" rich guy wearing a ceremonial hat near the Cosmati pavement.
...And he may have got a kiss photo, but he could easily put his foot in his mouth at any moment. He's dim.
Truss I thought handled the events of yesterday well. They obviously will dominate buy she combined paying tribute to our lost Queen with welcoming our new King.
Luckily for her she also got her plans for an energy bill cap in before the news broke
Plus the restart of fracking.
I think the tories are going to need to be very careful about how they sell that one though.
British voters these days want cheap gas without fracking near them, just as they want great public services with low taxes, lots of new property but no development where they live, low government debt but lots of spending, and free speech but censorship of opinions they disagree with.
I suspect the fracking will quietly disappear...
Protecting everybody from the vagaries of the gas market seems odd for a government that wants fracking, to be sure.
You mean, encouraging p[eople to invest in dodgy and futile projects?
Private companies drilling for oil and gas don't know what they are doing?
Surprising then, that they are making such vast sums of money that some want windfall taxes on those profits.
They aren't, at least not in the UK. Did you never notice that not one of the O&G companies that does North Sea drilling, nor even conventional O&G drilling onshore, has shown any interest in fracking in the UK? It is all being done by companies you had never heard of a few years ago. Indeed most of them didn't even exist 15 years ago.
The regular O&G companies which are making all that money have more sense than to invest in fracking.
I'm guessing fracking is to geology what Springtime for Hitler was to musical entertainment. As long as it loses money no-one is too surprised and the producers (sorry, The Producers) clean up. It's when profits are expected that investors get restive.
Oh I think the investors expect profits. They are either just being poorly advised or the very slight chance of getting a massive return outweighs the considerable risks of getting no return at all.
Like biotech.
Is it in your opinion possible for fracking to work - apologies if I haven't followed and you've answered before.
Not on current knowledge. It can work in other countries with vast areas of uniform geology but as with everything else, in Britain the Geology is just like our history and our society - a hotch potch of huge numbers of different varieties of rocks and terrains, often quite limited in extent and all horribly messed about by successive tectonic events. The closing of the Iapetus, the collision of Africa into Europe, the opening of the Atlantic and hundreds more - all have left their imprint on or rocks (how many people know that the Welsh coal fields only exist in the form they do because of the event that formed the Alps, or that bits of central Scotland started life in Siberia?)
What this means is that the volumes available, even if we were willing to cover the countryside in the thousands of wells necessary to exploit them, probably aren't economic anyway. Most observers from outside the fracking industry accept this.
There is a chance - not a tiny one but a small one - that they are wrong, but it seems unlikely at the moment.
Its a shame because I have no moral or political objection to fracking and if it were economic it would mean a job for life for me. But having looked at it a great deal when deciding whether to move in that direction, I concluded it is not viable as far as we can tell.
No harm in allowing more exploratory drilling then?
Truss I thought handled the events of yesterday well. They obviously will dominate buy she combined paying tribute to our lost Queen with welcoming our new King.
Luckily for her she also got her plans for an energy bill cap in before the news broke
Plus the restart of fracking.
I think the tories are going to need to be very careful about how they sell that one though.
British voters these days want cheap gas without fracking near them, just as they want great public services with low taxes, lots of new property but no development where they live, low government debt but lots of spending, and free speech but censorship of opinions they disagree with.
I suspect the fracking will quietly disappear...
Protecting everybody from the vagaries of the gas market seems odd for a government that wants fracking, to be sure.
You mean, encouraging p[eople to invest in dodgy and futile projects?
Private companies drilling for oil and gas don't know what they are doing?
Surprising then, that they are making such vast sums of money that some want windfall taxes on those profits.
They aren't, at least not in the UK. Did you never notice that not one of the O&G companies that does North Sea drilling, nor even conventional O&G drilling onshore, has shown any interest in fracking in the UK? It is all being done by companies you had never heard of a few years ago. Indeed most of them didn't even exist 15 years ago.
The regular O&G companies which are making all that money have more sense than to invest in fracking.
I'm guessing fracking is to geology what Springtime for Hitler was to musical entertainment. As long as it loses money no-one is too surprised and the producers (sorry, The Producers) clean up. It's when profits are expected that investors get restive.
Oh I think the investors expect profits. They are either just being poorly advised or the very slight chance of getting a massive return outweighs the considerable risks of getting no return at all.
Like biotech.
Is it in your opinion possible for fracking to work - apologies if I haven't followed and you've answered before.
Not on current knowledge. It can work in other countries with vast areas of uniform geology but as with everything else, in Britain the Geology is just like our history and our society - a hotch potch of huge numbers of different varieties of rocks and terrains, often quite limited in extent and all horribly messed about by successive tectonic events. The closing of the Iapetus, the collision of Africa into Europe, the opening of the Atlantic and hundreds more - all have left their imprint on or rocks (how many people know that the Welsh coal fields only exist in the form they do because of the event that formed the Alps, or that bits of central Scotland started life in Siberia?)
What this means is that the volumes available, even if we were willing to cover the countryside in the thousands of wells necessary to exploit them, probably aren't economic anyway. Most observers from outside the fracking industry accept this.
There is a chance - not a tiny one but a small one - that they are wrong, but it seems unlikely at the moment.
Its a shame because I have no moral or political objection to fracking and if it were economic it would mean a job for life for me. But having looked at it a great deal when deciding whether to move in that direction, I concluded it is not viable as far as we can tell.
No harm in allowing more exploratory drilling then?
Not just drilling - but actual fracking. Which has problems, as we have seen.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
The sane methodology, which has worked historically, is to
1) Set standards. 2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
It's possible you are more optimistic about all three than I am perhaps.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
The sane methodology, which has worked historically, is to
1) Set standards. 2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
It's possible you are more optimistic about all three than I am perhaps.
It just takes effort from regulators.
At a time when all tdhe mood music is about closing down regulatory legislation.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
Fracking is safe, its done in many places around the world already.
Hmm. There is something to be discussed on this.
Fracking CAN be safe - and most of the scare stories from around the world of burning water from taps etc are just garbage.
But there is one thing about the whole process and the way it has been licenced that rings big alarm bells for me.
If you want to drill a conventional oil or gas well in the UK either on or offshore then you are covered by a strict set of rules defined by the OGA (now renamed to the NSTA) and by BEIS. There is a requirement to produce a safety case - a system that came into existence after Piper Alpha and which covers all aspects of safety and environmental impact and which is legally binding with massive criminal implications if you don't follow it. The rules on possible pollution are amazingly strict so that, for example, even the rainwater that falls on your rig or site counts as contamination and has to be collected and disposed of properly after analysis. The licencing regime is extremely onerous but is fully accepted by the industry and has become a part of our culture.
None of this applies to fracking sites. They are covered by the HSE who do not apply the same strict regulations as apply to the rest of the Oil and Gas industry. No one is really sure why things were set up this way but it certainly raises concerns about how these operations are being run and what controls are put upon them.
On the question of what time the Queen died I believe it would have been shortly before Liz Truss was told in the commons and I believe the note did affirm the Queen had died.
I expect as part of London Bridge planning that the PM would be informed almost straight away and before the media
I was working on the assumption that it was around the time the TV presenters all switched to black ties - about 1.30 or so?
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
The sane methodology, which has worked historically, is to
1) Set standards. 2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
It's possible you are more optimistic about all three than I am perhaps.
Truss I thought handled the events of yesterday well. They obviously will dominate buy she combined paying tribute to our lost Queen with welcoming our new King.
Luckily for her she also got her plans for an energy bill cap in before the news broke
Plus the restart of fracking.
I think the tories are going to need to be very careful about how they sell that one though.
British voters these days want cheap gas without fracking near them, just as they want great public services with low taxes, lots of new property but no development where they live, low government debt but lots of spending, and free speech but censorship of opinions they disagree with.
I suspect the fracking will quietly disappear...
Protecting everybody from the vagaries of the gas market seems odd for a government that wants fracking, to be sure.
You mean, encouraging p[eople to invest in dodgy and futile projects?
Private companies drilling for oil and gas don't know what they are doing?
Surprising then, that they are making such vast sums of money that some want windfall taxes on those profits.
They aren't, at least not in the UK. Did you never notice that not one of the O&G companies that does North Sea drilling, nor even conventional O&G drilling onshore, has shown any interest in fracking in the UK? It is all being done by companies you had never heard of a few years ago. Indeed most of them didn't even exist 15 years ago.
The regular O&G companies which are making all that money have more sense than to invest in fracking.
I'm guessing fracking is to geology what Springtime for Hitler was to musical entertainment. As long as it loses money no-one is too surprised and the producers (sorry, The Producers) clean up. It's when profits are expected that investors get restive.
No.
To start with fracking is happening in the UK. Right now.
The fracking we are all referring to is a sub set of fracking.
The suspicion is that the people pushing fracking are the equipment operators etc who actually will do the work. Who will make a profit on doing the work on behalf of the company running the site(s).....
Unfortunately although the idea is similar, it is very misleading to say that fracking as done in a conventional well is anything like the process, or carries the same risks, as shale fracking.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
The sane methodology, which has worked historically, is to
1) Set standards. 2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
It's possible you are more optimistic about all three than I am perhaps.
It just takes effort from regulators.
That ship has already sailed, for reasons I have already explained.
On the question of what time the Queen died I believe it would have been shortly before Liz Truss was told in the commons and I believe the note did affirm the Queen had died.
I expect as part of London Bridge planning that the PM would be informed almost straight away and before the media
I was working on the assumption that it was around the time the TV presenters all switched to black ties - about 1.30 or so?
That would have been in preparation of likely developmemts 'in the coming hours' i.e. They were told it was a strong possibility. If we take the Jacinda Ardern wake up and official PM informing at 4.30pm BST we know nobody outside Balmoral was informed of anything official before that. Huw Edwards doesnt get the info before the NZ PM
I am however looking forward to having the word catafalque back in daily usage.
Ah yes, the catafalque. My father was the officer commanding the coffin bearers at Mountbatten's funeral. One of the unusual honours given to Mountbatten was that they used the royal catafalque, which had been used at every funeral from Victoria on. All well and good, except that this made it quite old. And not very well maintained. He did warn them about this following rehearsal...
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
That is a fantastic story. Was he in the RN?
Yes, he was. Started as a boy seaman and finished as Lieutenant Commander and Provost Marshal Navy. He was at HMS Excellent at the time, but the coffin bearers were from HMS Mercury (specific request from Mountbatten). Mercury wsa a comms base, so they were all radio operators, engineers, etc. And shit at marching Only his second best story from his time in the Navy: saying No to Maggie T and getting his way was the best. A story for another time.
Nice story! That was the establishment at East Meon near Petersfield? Well away from the Pompey bases and the drill instructors of HMS Excellent on Whale Island, not coincidentally, I suppose.
1953: coronation, "conquest" of Mount Everest, large jump in TV ownership 1953-54: end of rationing 1955: Tories win general election 1957-59: Harold Macmillan: "You've never had it so good" 1959: Tory landslide in general election
Let's assume it goes 2023: coronation
What else? At the moment I can't see anything that could correspond with the rise in TV ownership that was so important to the whole perception of the 1953 coronation, or with the end of rationing, or with the general feel of that epoch. Nobody can eat or warm themselves by TV memories of an archetypally "entitled" rich guy wearing a ceremonial hat near the Cosmati pavement.
...And he may have got a kiss photo, but he could easily put his foot in his mouth at any moment. He's dim.
He was smart enough, or well-enough-advised to get out of the car for a meet and greet with his new subjects, despite having to contend with his grief, a meeting with the PM and recording an address to the Nation and Commonwealth.
Maybe he is about to balls things up, but I reckon he'll end up exceeding expectations and show that he was paying attention to what his mother did.
1953: coronation, "conquest" of Mount Everest, large jump in TV ownership 1953-54: end of rationing 1955: Tories win general election 1957-59: Harold Macmillan: "You've never had it so good" 1959: Tory landslide in general election
Let's assume it goes 2023: coronation
What else? At the moment I can't see anything that could correspond with the rise in TV ownership that was so important to the whole perception of the 1953 coronation, or with the end of rationing, or with the general feel of that epoch. Nobody can eat or warm themselves by TV memories of an archetypally "entitled" rich guy wearing a ceremonial hat near the Cosmati pavement.
...And he may have got a kiss photo, but he could easily put his foot in his mouth at any moment. He's dim.
There certainly was a general feeling of "things getting better "in the mid to late 50s; the (effective) end of the Korean War helped too.
It is of interest to observe the number of times that the following happens -
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business 2) Other people invest 3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit 4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
Hmm, do the chemicals for fracking come from Ineos, by any chance? (Not suggesting they necessarily do. But it's something to check if one is looking into investing. (The chaps who made most money from gold rushes tended to be the equipment sellers and saloon owners.)
I went to school with someone whose grandfather had made a fortune in 1929 - he was getting a commission for doing trades, and hadn't invested in the market as such.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
Indeed. If some rich people lose some money going for fracking and it fails, then that's on them. Their money. No loss for us.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
What if, and I realise this is unheard of, the rich people try it, knacker the local environment then leave the poor people to deal with the fall-out?
The sane methodology, which has worked historically, is to
1) Set standards. 2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
It's possible you are more optimistic about all three than I am perhaps.
It just takes effort from regulators.
That ship has already sailed, for reasons I have already explained.
Extending the regulation would simply be some law passing, wouldn't it?
Haven't we got a building full of politicians in Central London, who are supposed to specialise in that?
Comments
And then a few days later, the funeral happens. And there are big tears, but afterwards laughter, and things are better.
And tears are now streaminh unbidden down my cheeks at the memories of family funerals.
Anyway, yes, it's the way it goes. Not sure how we do this with 67 million people though.
I bet she will leave social media in a year or two
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima
A cluster from start to finish, including an unprovoked attack on British trawlers off Dogger Bank. Russian military victories are almost exclusively backs-to-the-wall defence of the homeland with no alternative (1812, 1942). They're not very good at consolidating accidental gains made against the run of play.
Or I should say it WAS floating the idea. It may be backtracking.
See two articles today from TASS:
"LPR ready to hold referendum any day when it is safe — Lugansk leader"
https://tass.com/world/1505231
and then less than an hour and a half later:
"Referendums on liberated territories depend on people’s choice — Kremlin spokesman "
https://tass.com/politics/1505283
It's all going on very much as usual. Nowhere's closed AFAICT. No one has a day off work or school. No one's dressed in black.
Footy games have been cancelled. The government has decided to avoid scrutiny. And the TV and radio are worse even than usual. That's about it.
Not sure how any of that is respectful. Or constitutes mourning.
It's daily life, just a bit shitter in a few annoying ways.
It's what she'd have wanted.
She will milk this and be treated as the victim in a few years time.
After a fortnight of this, the nation will quietly and unanimously resolve a no fuss arrangement next time around.
Is it in your opinion possible for fracking to work - apologies if I haven't followed and you've answered before.
Yes, there's a potential boundary in time and temperament for OTT excessiveness, and mawkishness, and this absolutely isn't that.
Contrarians who think we should just ignore it and life should carry on as if nothing has happened either don't have a heart or a brain.
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/when-duke-ellington-made-a-record
...The recent mania for turning music into non-fungible tokens (NFTs) is just the latest iteration of this quest. Back in 2015, the Wu-Tang Clan made just a single copy of its seventh album, and packaged it in a jewel-studded silver box. We never learned how much financier Martin Shkreli paid for it back then, but the Department of Justice later seized it, and sold it for $4 million—making this the most expensive musical work in history.
But Duke Ellington did the exact same thing in 1959, and without any desire to make money. He created a unique album solely for the pleasure of giving it to Queen Elizabeth. With the help of Billy Strayhorn, he composed The Queen’s Suite, had one record manufactured—and sent it directly to Buckingham Palace, solely intended for Her Majesty’s ears....
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/billionaire-jim-ratcliffe-backs-fracking-after-truss-energy-plan-b1024153.html
.......er......
One of Britain's richest men.
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1568021768316542976
https://twitter.com/kforeman/status/1568055897150341122
"We've been waiting a long time for this..."
There are 2 distinct groups who top the irritation tree though.
The mourners who tell you how you must mourn, what is your duty, how you must feel, and what it is 'right' that you do or do not and
Those that are doing the equivalent of constantly waving their hand in front of your face going 'not touching! Not touching! Im not touching, you have to let me, im entitled to, its allowed' who then bleat when someone snaps their arm in half. He wasnt entitled to do that, but you fucking deserved it.
1) Big Name gets involved at the start of a business
2) Other people invest
3) Big name divests (largely) making handsome profit
4) Other investor stay in and are... not so lucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic for example....
If the head of state is going to take sides on things, the head of state needs to be a political figure i.e. elected. An unelected head of state needs to remain scrupulously neutral on everything, like his predecessor. It evidently isn't easy to do.
Otherwise you will have no recourse when he starts taking sides on issues you don't want him to.
As the coffin was lowered on to the catafalque, with the Queen a few metres away, the catafalque collapsed slightly. While the coffin was lifted and repositioned, my father had to physically hold one end of the structure up so that the coffin wasn't deposited rapidly and loudly on to the floor.
It was either replaced or refurbished (can't remember which) immediately afterwards. My father got a very nice note from the queen.
He didn’t have to or wasn’t expected to say anything under the circumstances.
The other half thinks he was aiming it to his home audience “look guys, when someone old and not in the best of health has lovingly devoted such a chunk of their life to a country then it’s time to realise how great they are, remember all the good things, they are missed when they are gone. Please don’t push me out of a window.”
Not necessarily that Ukraine will liberate those areas, though I hope they do. But because if Russia suffers reversals they might get abandoned, or at the least will not benefit as the area remains small and on the front line.
Wonder how long until he gets sent to Kyiv?
Was the king's loyal subject who kissed him one of the throng who booed Meghan in Manchester four days ago?
Or perhaps she has scrofula from TB and thought that touching the sacred monarch would cure her?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch
I doubt too many will do either instead of heading out to the footie or their hockey match.
It seems completely perverse not to try fracking because it might cause a few rich people to become less rich. Its not as if fracking is being pyramid sold to the public. Fracking company shares are not being peddled around the doorsteps of Britain by shiny salespeople.
There's no South Sea fracking bubble, as far as I can see.
If they go for it and it succeeds, then it would add to our national energy security and the tax revenues on that would go towards paying down our deficit/the NHS/tax cuts/take your pick.
Heads we win, tails they lose. There's no downside.
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1568205704913195009
Priceless deadpan from the judge dismissing:
...Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to distill it here...
What this means is that the volumes available, even if we were willing to cover the countryside in the thousands of wells necessary to exploit them, probably aren't economic anyway. Most observers from outside the fracking industry accept this.
There is a chance - not a tiny one but a small one - that they are wrong, but it seems unlikely at the moment.
Its a shame because I have no moral or political objection to fracking and if it were economic it would mean a job for life for me. But having looked at it a great deal when deciding whether to move in that direction, I concluded it is not viable as far as we can tell.
1) Set standards.
2) Enforce the standards
Oh and
3) Make sure that constructive bankruptcy doesn't get people out of doing the cleanup.
Only his second best story from his time in the Navy: saying No to Maggie T and getting his way was the best. A story for another time.
If he goes I fear mainly for the Russian people because he has kept the place in some kind of order, and there just isn't a successor. He has been around for a long time and there hasn't been much succession planning.
All the indications are that there is no appetite for western liberal democracy outside elite circles in Moscow/St Petersburg.
The probability is that the place would descend in to early 1990's style chaos with truly unknown consequences for everyone.
This time around though there would be a lot more hostility towards the west and NATO as it would be blamed for the situation in Ukraine.
So who knows where that would lead.
Edit/reminder... I don't support Putin and what he has done in Ukraine in any way.
I expect as part of London Bridge planning that the PM would be informed almost straight away and before the media
As part of the report, EPA identified certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe, including:
> Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
> Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
> Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
> Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
> Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and
> Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37578189
The Absence of Any Executive Privilege by a Former President For National Security Secrets
https://www.justsecurity.org/83012/the-absence-of-any-executive-privilege-by-a-former-president-for-national-security-secrets/
...Trump’s contention is founded on the Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), where the Court concluded that under some circumstances a former president could assert one type of executive privilege, commonly known as the presidential communications privilege. The presidential communications privilege (first recognized by the Court in the 1974 Nixon tapes case) is a qualified privilege applying to confidential deliberative communications between a president and his advisers. The idea is that a president will not be able to get candid advice from subordinates without an assurance this advice will generally remain confidential and that this assurance of confidentiality should not automatically end (or be solely controlled by a successor) when a president leaves office. Indeed, it’s also the type that Justice Brett Kavanaugh discussed in his 2021 opinion suggesting a former president’s view of executive privilege could in some cases trump the incumbent’s view.
Importantly, neither Nixon v. GSA nor Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion suggest that a former president could assert a different type of executive privilege — the so-called “state secrets” privilege which applies to military and diplomatic secrets and which the Court has suggested may be more absolute than the qualified presidential communications privilege. To the contrary, Nixon v. GSA noted that all parties to the case, including former President Nixon, agreed that “the very specific privilege protecting against disclosure of state secrets and sensitive information concerning military or diplomatic matters . . . may be asserted only by an incumbent President” (emphasis added). Thus, the Court contrasted the privilege related to confidentiality of presidential communications with the “privilege relating to the need ‘to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets’” (quoting U.S. v Nixon)....
which if it worked would mean a lot more NATO on the larger border.
Now, he was probably just lying about that reason, he advanced so many, but that means one of his publicly stated reasons is entirely illogical and irrational, since it has nothing to do with information other than looking at a map.
I dont mean he's stupid, or that his general paranoid approach does not have brutal logic from his point of view, but some of his avtions cannot be explained that way. Hence so many being convinced he'd never actually invade for instance.
She was told at 4.30, just moments before the other commonwealth leaders were informed
1953-54: end of rationing
1955: Tories win general election
1957-59: Harold Macmillan: "You've never had it so good"
1959: Tory landslide in general election
Let's assume it goes
2023: coronation
What else? At the moment I can't see anything that could correspond with the rise in TV ownership that was so important to the whole perception of the 1953 coronation, or with the end of rationing, or with the general feel of that epoch. Nobody can eat or warm themselves by TV memories of an archetypally "entitled" rich guy wearing a ceremonial hat near the Cosmati pavement.
...And he may have got a kiss photo, but he could easily put his foot in his mouth at any moment. He's dim.
Fracking CAN be safe - and most of the scare stories from around the world of burning water from taps etc are just garbage.
But there is one thing about the whole process and the way it has been licenced that rings big alarm bells for me.
If you want to drill a conventional oil or gas well in the UK either on or offshore then you are covered by a strict set of rules defined by the OGA (now renamed to the NSTA) and by BEIS. There is a requirement to produce a safety case - a system that came into existence after Piper Alpha and which covers all aspects of safety and environmental impact and which is legally binding with massive criminal implications if you don't follow it. The rules on possible pollution are amazingly strict so that, for example, even the rainwater that falls on your rig or site counts as contamination and has to be collected and disposed of properly after analysis. The licencing regime is extremely onerous but is fully accepted by the industry and has become a part of our culture.
None of this applies to fracking sites. They are covered by the HSE who do not apply the same strict regulations as apply to the rest of the Oil and Gas industry. No one is really sure why things were set up this way but it certainly raises concerns about how these operations are being run and what controls are put upon them.
If we take the Jacinda Ardern wake up and official PM informing at 4.30pm BST we know nobody outside Balmoral was informed of anything official before that. Huw Edwards doesnt get the info before the NZ PM
Maybe he is about to balls things up, but I reckon he'll end up exceeding expectations and show that he was paying attention to what his mother did.
Haven't we got a building full of politicians in Central London, who are supposed to specialise in that?