Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Normal politics will resume after the funeral – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Constitutional purists here - is it “Queen Camilla” or is she “the Queen Consort”?

    There seem to be a lot of announcers using the latter today, but from newsreel I’ve seen we didn’t use to call Mary or the Queen Mum “the Queen Consort.” It was just Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth or The Queen.

    Is this something to do with the fact that they need to try and stop giving the impression that the “Queendom” has descended to Camilla rather than the crown passing to Charles?

    I seem to recall talk that there was no such established term, and that strictly speaking it should just be Queen Camilla. But given a lot of people seem to lose their shit at the prospect, the Queen came up with this term and mentioned it in her 70th anniversary message. It seems to be for no reason other than some people don't want Camilla to be Queen.
  • Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    It is not just a case of drilling a hole and letting the gas come out. That works with conventional reservoirs because it is possible, through flowing, testing and monitoring, to calculate volumes, baffles and compartmentalisation all from the data collected from a single well. Reservoir engineering is a black art and one I hardly understand but it does This is not the case with fracking. You would need to drill dozens of wells scattered across the countryside every few hundred yards and until you had drilled them and fracked them you would have no idea whether your field was viable.

    If you are drilling on the prairies in the USA or the North German plains in Poland then this is viable. By which I mean it can be done cheaply and with little disturbance to the local community. If you are doing it in Lancashire where you have a village every mile and all manner of other obstructions then it becomes far more expensive to the point of being uneconomic - even before you know if you even have anything worth producing.

    Now I can accept that that can be a price worth paying if the geology turns out to be right. If it doesn't then the company goes bust and someone else has to deal with all the environmental damage that has been done.
    Good points but if companies are willing to sink capital on basis of returns if fracking is in fact viable and clean up costs are covered in advance (e.g. by insurance style payments) then I think it should be allowed. I also think that all resource extraction and infrastructure development schemes should directly compensate local residents (paid for by the developer).
    Agreed but to do that you are going to have to change the whole basis of bankruptcy and liability as well. Because there will be no compensation if the company goes bust. Remember these are not long standing companies with lots of different assets and interests. They were usually set up specifically for the exploitation of Shale gas and will have little in the way of assets beyond a rented office. All the equipment for drilling the wells will be hired in - just as it is in conventional drilling - and if the enterprise fails there will be nothing left to compensate anyone, investors, public or probably the contractors either.

    And I suspect any sane insurance broker looking at the potential liabilities from these operations would run a mile.
    I am sceptical about fracking but wouldn't the government be insurer of last resort?.
    Yes. But that removes all responsibility from the company which kind of takes us right back to where we were at the start of these discussions.

    If you remove all financial liability and regulatory control from an operation pretty much anything is possible. But is tat the route you want to take, particularly when there is no certainty of success anyway.
    Man y thanks - some very interesting posts from you today, as well as recently. Much appreciated.
    Do remember with all of this that I am not sat there looking at the results from their wells, their seismic data nor their long term plans. I could be wrong with this. But it just seems unlikely based on the current state of publicly available information.
    Thankfully, the government have announced they're delaying publishing the Geological Society report (again). Which I'm sure is because it supports their policy and they just want us all to be extra wowed later.
  • ohnotnow said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    I certainly got the impression from watching Angela Rayner's face when she was handed the note for Keir that it was a "Oh, that's terribly sad to hear" rather than, what I'd expect, to be a more "Oh sh*t, holy hell" if it was saying "she's dead".

    Maybe she truly didn't give much of a monkeys - but it really had that look about it.
    I agree. It will have been a “the Queen isn’t well, we need senior members of both parties to be contactable and on standby” probably.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    Truss was told by the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, at 4.30pm, and it would be two hours before the news would be released to the country.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/whispers-hours-of-uncertainty-then-news-of-the-death-of-the-queen

    Good summary of timeline.
  • Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    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
    Ahem. I think you’ll that in the formal line of notification the Queen’s Most Loyal Intruder, Michael Fagan Esq, is informed 3rd, after the Queen’s Private Secretary, and the Honourable Imbiber of Heroin With The Queen’s Loyal Intruder (Dragontail Pursuivant) is 7th

    I believe @TOPPING is 13,248th in the line of information
    How many people do you supppse the queen has met - however you define 'met' - in her life? It's quite possible it's more than any other human, ever.
    Passport control operator?
    Waterloo ticket collector in the 1960s? (But quite a few would be repeats, unless the collector was moved around.)
    Repeats can't count, otherwise anyone who goes to the pub regularly would be a contender. I think passport control at one of the major hub airports. Or a ticket inspector at Mecca perhaps.
  • Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    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
    Ahem. I think you’ll that in the formal line of notification the Queen’s Most Loyal Intruder, Michael Fagan Esq, is informed 3rd, after the Queen’s Private Secretary, and the Honourable Imbiber of Heroin With The Queen’s Loyal Intruder (Dragontail Pursuivant) is 7th

    I believe @TOPPING is 13,248th in the line of information
    How many people do you supppse the queen has met - however you define 'met' - in her life? It's quite possible it's more than any other human, ever.
    My Dad almost shook her hand at some army-related bash a few years ago, my step-cousin’s a soldier. My Dad’s somewhere to the left of Trotsky but was disappointed when she was two people away from him and heading towards him when she was suddenly steered away. He wanted to shake the hand that had shook the hand of all those countless famous, and infamous, people.
    Yours truly enjoyed (if that's the word) just ONE degree of separation from the late Queen.

    (My guess is, she enjoyed it - the separation that is - even more!)

    This is on account of the fact that I once met & shook the hand of Malcolm Rifkind, after he'd served as head of several ministries of HMG, most notably Foreign Secretary.

    He thus "kissed hands" on at least one occasion, if not more?

    My other avenue, with TWO degrees of separation, is via a former boss of mine, who as a teenager was invited to attend the Coronation of QEII as guest of General George C. Marshall, who was President Eisenhower's official representative.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Why would it be very rigid, when it's for a one off event, and as it is all secret how would we know if it was or not? Given the state of things over the course of the summer including (we can assume) the obvious decline in HM's health, and the looming change in PM and the fact she was going to die in Scotland not Norfolk, you would think they would have revised the plan from top to toe at the beginning of August. If your source is that Guardian article it is out of date ("London bridge" will not have been the code used for starters) and not particularly verifiable. and you are wrong about "leaving the chamber;" she has to "just carry on" because if she sprints out of her first PM statement to the House in mid sentence that's equivalent to telling the world HM has carked it.
    Indeed sometimes keeping calm and carrying on is what is required.

    From memory on 9/11 didn't President Bush get informed of the attacks and finish reading to school children before he left?

    Truss would have to keep calm until she was off view of the camera at least.
    Yes which bizarrely I seem to recall some people tried to criticise him for, as if leaping up in shock, screaming out that the country was under attack and running from the room would have been the more appropriate option.
    I like to picture him screaming at the children "OMG! DUCK AND COVER, KIDS! DUCK AND COVER!"
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
  • Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    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
    Ahem. I think you’ll that in the formal line of notification the Queen’s Most Loyal Intruder, Michael Fagan Esq, is informed 3rd, after the Queen’s Private Secretary, and the Honourable Imbiber of Heroin With The Queen’s Loyal Intruder (Dragontail Pursuivant) is 7th

    I believe @TOPPING is 13,248th in the line of information
    How many people do you supppse the queen has met - however you define 'met' - in her life? It's quite possible it's more than any other human, ever.
    Passport control operator?
    Waterloo ticket collector in the 1960s? (But quite a few would be repeats, unless the collector was moved around.)
    Repeats can't count, otherwise anyone who goes to the pub regularly would be a contender. I think passport control at one of the major hub airports. Or a ticket inspector at Mecca perhaps.
    Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged, obviously...
  • Constitutional purists here - is it “Queen Camilla” or is she “the Queen Consort”?

    There seem to be a lot of announcers using the latter today, but from newsreel I’ve seen we didn’t use to call Mary or the Queen Mum “the Queen Consort.” It was just Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth or The Queen.

    Is this something to do with the fact that they need to try and stop giving the impression that the “Queendom” has descended to Camilla rather than the crown passing to Charles?

    She’s “Queen Camilla”.

    “Queen Consort” is a description of her position “married to the King” and in contrast to the late Queen who was “Queen Regnant” - top boss. Just like the wives of George’s V & VI who were Queens Consort, but known as Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth.

    We’ve never had a “King Consort” as both Victoria and Elizabeth’s husbands were Princes.
  • Constitutional purists here - is it “Queen Camilla” or is she “the Queen Consort”?

    There seem to be a lot of announcers using the latter today, but from newsreel I’ve seen we didn’t use to call Mary or the Queen Mum “the Queen Consort.” It was just Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth or The Queen.

    Is this something to do with the fact that they need to try and stop giving the impression that the “Queendom” has descended to Camilla rather than the crown passing to Charles?

    If they can embed the practice of using "Queen Consort", then it opens up the possibility of using "King Consort" for the spouse of any future Queen Regnant.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
    The PMs office have stared she was informed of the Queens death at 4.30pm yesterday. Ardern says she was woken at approx 5.30 am (4.30pm BST) by a policeman shining a light in her face and informing her to take a call. So we know heads of government in the Commonwealth were informed at about 4.30pm yesterday. They are the first people informed outside the royal family/immediate household.
  • .

    Constitutional purists here - is it “Queen Camilla” or is she “the Queen Consort”?

    There seem to be a lot of announcers using the latter today, but from newsreel I’ve seen we didn’t use to call Mary or the Queen Mum “the Queen Consort.” It was just Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth or The Queen.

    Is this something to do with the fact that they need to try and stop giving the impression that the “Queendom” has descended to Camilla rather than the crown passing to Charles?

    She’s “Queen Camilla”.

    “Queen Consort” is a description of her position “married to the King” and in contrast to the late Queen who was “Queen Regnant” - top boss. Just like the wives of George’s V & VI who were Queens Consort, but known as Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth.

    We’ve never had a “King Consort” as both Victoria and Elizabeth’s husbands were Princes.
    “Queen Consort” sounds like an upmarket version of fag hag.
    Do you mean the title, or Camilla herself?
  • .

    Constitutional purists here - is it “Queen Camilla” or is she “the Queen Consort”?

    There seem to be a lot of announcers using the latter today, but from newsreel I’ve seen we didn’t use to call Mary or the Queen Mum “the Queen Consort.” It was just Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth or The Queen.

    Is this something to do with the fact that they need to try and stop giving the impression that the “Queendom” has descended to Camilla rather than the crown passing to Charles?

    She’s “Queen Camilla”.

    “Queen Consort” is a description of her position “married to the King” and in contrast to the late Queen who was “Queen Regnant” - top boss. Just like the wives of George’s V & VI who were Queens Consort, but known as Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth.

    We’ve never had a “King Consort” as both Victoria and Elizabeth’s husbands were Princes.
    “Queen Consort” sounds like an upmarket version of fag hag.
    Do you mean the title, or Camilla herself?
    Just the title. :)
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    edited September 2022
    Not a fan of the new king and queen.

    QEII should be the last. Aside from William & Kate & few minor exceptions at the fringes, her family are pretty universally awful.

    Give thanks to Liz for her service, then be rid of ‘em, I recon.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    Truss was told by the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, at 4.30pm, and it would be two hours before the news would be released to the country.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/whispers-hours-of-uncertainty-then-news-of-the-death-of-the-queen

    Good summary of timeline.
    It's bollocks. We are told downthread that there is this really, really strict protocol which says that HM's private secretary tells the PM on a secure line, so how does disgraced party animal and all round loser Simon bloody Case get into the loop, when Truss is tucked safely away in no 10 next to her very own secure telephone and waiting for the call?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    Constitutional purists here - is it “Queen Camilla” or is she “the Queen Consort”?

    There seem to be a lot of announcers using the latter today, but from newsreel I’ve seen we didn’t use to call Mary or the Queen Mum “the Queen Consort.” It was just Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth or The Queen.

    Is this something to do with the fact that they need to try and stop giving the impression that the “Queendom” has descended to Camilla rather than the crown passing to Charles?

    If they can embed the practice of using "Queen Consort", then it opens up the possibility of using "King Consort" for the spouse of any future Queen Regnant.
    Philip of Spain was closest - declared joint monarch, and King, but not allowed to do much practical ruling.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
    The PMs office have stared she was informed of the Queens death at 4.30pm yesterday. Ardern says she was woken at approx 5.30 am (4.30pm BST) by a policeman shining a light in her face and informing her to take a call. So we know heads of government in the Commonwealth were informed at about 4.30pm yesterday. They are the first people informed outside the royal family/immediate household.
    Sorry, where have the PM's office stated this? And do you actually think there would be zero timelag between the PM of the UK being told, and the PM of NZ (who we can take it would be quite wel down any list given both her time zone and her general importance in the scheme of things)?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    At a guess, 50% of the English speaking world know someone who knows someone who has met the queen.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,976

    Public Announcement - I wish to apologize immediately, totally and unconditionally for my indefensible, cruel and unforgivable aspersions upon mongrels, by connecting them in ANY way with the likes of Rudy Giuliani.

    What I meant to say, is that RG and etc., are a litter of JUNKYARD dogs, as illustrated below:

    https://whyy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/fourseasonstotallandscaping-trumpgiuliani-768x432.jpg

    ADDENDUM - 2nd Public Announcement:

    I wish to apologize immediately, totally and unconditionally for my indefensible, cruel and unforgivable aspersions upon junkyard dogs, or any other breed, kind or type of canine, by connecting them in ANY way with the likes of Rudy Giuliani.

    I'm reading Michael Wolff's Trump trilogy atm and amongst all the 24 carat ghouls and clowns surrounding him in the WH - memorably described as "like the Star Wars bar scene" - Rudy still manages to stand out.

    Even the worst of the gang didn't like him around apparently. He was too crazy even for them. Also totally inept. Couldn't work any tech, couldn't follow a train of thought, and forever farting.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,150

    TOPPING said:

    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    It is not just a case of drilling a hole and letting the gas come out. That works with conventional reservoirs because it is possible, through flowing, testing and monitoring, to calculate volumes, baffles and compartmentalisation all from the data collected from a single well. Reservoir engineering is a black art and one I hardly understand but it does This is not the case with fracking. You would need to drill dozens of wells scattered across the countryside every few hundred yards and until you had drilled them and fracked them you would have no idea whether your field was viable.

    If you are drilling on the prairies in the USA or the North German plains in Poland then this is viable. By which I mean it can be done cheaply and with little disturbance to the local community. If you are doing it in Lancashire where you have a village every mile and all manner of other obstructions then it becomes far more expensive to the point of being uneconomic - even before you know if you even have anything worth producing.

    Now I can accept that that can be a price worth paying if the geology turns out to be right. If it doesn't then the company goes bust and someone else has to deal with all the environmental damage that has been done.
    Good points but if companies are willing to sink capital on basis of returns if fracking is in fact viable and clean up costs are covered in advance (e.g. by insurance style payments) then I think it should be allowed. I also think that all resource extraction and infrastructure development schemes should directly compensate local residents (paid for by the developer).
    Agreed but to do that you are going to have to change the whole basis of bankruptcy and liability as well. Because there will be no compensation if the company goes bust. Remember these are not long standing companies with lots of different assets and interests. They were usually set up specifically for the exploitation of Shale gas and will have little in the way of assets beyond a rented office. All the equipment for drilling the wells will be hired in - just as it is in conventional drilling - and if the enterprise fails there will be nothing left to compensate anyone, investors, public or probably the contractors either.

    And I suspect any sane insurance broker looking at the potential liabilities from these operations would run a mile.
    I am sceptical about fracking but wouldn't the government be insurer of last resort?.
    Why? If you can’t purchase insurance to cover a cleanup because you are so likely to go bust, why should the government back you up?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ohnotnow said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    I certainly got the impression from watching Angela Rayner's face when she was handed the note for Keir that it was a "Oh, that's terribly sad to hear" rather than, what I'd expect, to be a more "Oh sh*t, holy hell" if it was saying "she's dead".

    Maybe she truly didn't give much of a monkeys - but it really had that look about it.
    Not what happened. She got a note to her, went out presumably to speak to someone on phone or in person, re entered. So the big reveal was not in the note, it was in the conversation.
  • TOPPING said:

    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    It is not just a case of drilling a hole and letting the gas come out. That works with conventional reservoirs because it is possible, through flowing, testing and monitoring, to calculate volumes, baffles and compartmentalisation all from the data collected from a single well. Reservoir engineering is a black art and one I hardly understand but it does This is not the case with fracking. You would need to drill dozens of wells scattered across the countryside every few hundred yards and until you had drilled them and fracked them you would have no idea whether your field was viable.

    If you are drilling on the prairies in the USA or the North German plains in Poland then this is viable. By which I mean it can be done cheaply and with little disturbance to the local community. If you are doing it in Lancashire where you have a village every mile and all manner of other obstructions then it becomes far more expensive to the point of being uneconomic - even before you know if you even have anything worth producing.

    Now I can accept that that can be a price worth paying if the geology turns out to be right. If it doesn't then the company goes bust and someone else has to deal with all the environmental damage that has been done.
    Good points but if companies are willing to sink capital on basis of returns if fracking is in fact viable and clean up costs are covered in advance (e.g. by insurance style payments) then I think it should be allowed. I also think that all resource extraction and infrastructure development schemes should directly compensate local residents (paid for by the developer).
    Agreed but to do that you are going to have to change the whole basis of bankruptcy and liability as well. Because there will be no compensation if the company goes bust. Remember these are not long standing companies with lots of different assets and interests. They were usually set up specifically for the exploitation of Shale gas and will have little in the way of assets beyond a rented office. All the equipment for drilling the wells will be hired in - just as it is in conventional drilling - and if the enterprise fails there will be nothing left to compensate anyone, investors, public or probably the contractors either.

    And I suspect any sane insurance broker looking at the potential liabilities from these operations would run a mile.
    I am sceptical about fracking but wouldn't the government be insurer of last resort?.
    Why? If you can’t purchase insurance to cover a cleanup because you are so likely to go bust, why should the government back you up?
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses and pay off the politicians to make it happen. A billionaires version of the free market.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
    The PMs office have stared she was informed of the Queens death at 4.30pm yesterday. Ardern says she was woken at approx 5.30 am (4.30pm BST) by a policeman shining a light in her face and informing her to take a call. So we know heads of government in the Commonwealth were informed at about 4.30pm yesterday. They are the first people informed outside the royal family/immediate household.
    Sorry, where have the PM's office stated this? And do you actually think there would be zero timelag between the PM of the UK being told, and the PM of NZ (who we can take it would be quite wel down any list given both her time zone and her general importance in the scheme of things)?
    In protocol terms Truss and Ardern are equals - the late Queen was their head of State.
  • TOPPING said:

    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    It is not just a case of drilling a hole and letting the gas come out. That works with conventional reservoirs because it is possible, through flowing, testing and monitoring, to calculate volumes, baffles and compartmentalisation all from the data collected from a single well. Reservoir engineering is a black art and one I hardly understand but it does This is not the case with fracking. You would need to drill dozens of wells scattered across the countryside every few hundred yards and until you had drilled them and fracked them you would have no idea whether your field was viable.

    If you are drilling on the prairies in the USA or the North German plains in Poland then this is viable. By which I mean it can be done cheaply and with little disturbance to the local community. If you are doing it in Lancashire where you have a village every mile and all manner of other obstructions then it becomes far more expensive to the point of being uneconomic - even before you know if you even have anything worth producing.

    Now I can accept that that can be a price worth paying if the geology turns out to be right. If it doesn't then the company goes bust and someone else has to deal with all the environmental damage that has been done.
    Good points but if companies are willing to sink capital on basis of returns if fracking is in fact viable and clean up costs are covered in advance (e.g. by insurance style payments) then I think it should be allowed. I also think that all resource extraction and infrastructure development schemes should directly compensate local residents (paid for by the developer).
    Agreed but to do that you are going to have to change the whole basis of bankruptcy and liability as well. Because there will be no compensation if the company goes bust. Remember these are not long standing companies with lots of different assets and interests. They were usually set up specifically for the exploitation of Shale gas and will have little in the way of assets beyond a rented office. All the equipment for drilling the wells will be hired in - just as it is in conventional drilling - and if the enterprise fails there will be nothing left to compensate anyone, investors, public or probably the contractors either.

    And I suspect any sane insurance broker looking at the potential liabilities from these operations would run a mile.
    I am sceptical about fracking but wouldn't the government be insurer of last resort?.
    Why? If you can’t purchase insurance to cover a cleanup because you are so likely to go bust, why should the government back you up?
    It shouldn’t
  • moonshine said:

    Cookie said:

    moonshine said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect
    she was told that it was likely imminent.
    It was reported that they sent Charles’s helicopter up to Scotland first thing in the morning. Most likely something happened overnight. Beyond a very few staff, family members and medical professionals, HM became Schrödinger’s cat made real. It’s clear that the formal process awaited the arrival of all the Queen’s children but that what was communicated in Parliament was sufficiently clear that it was just the formalities outstanding.

    The real puzzle was what happened with the Sussexes. If Charles’s household knew at 8.30am and we on pb knew at 12.30pm, why did it take the silly bugger until after 8pm(?) to make
    it over?

    Because he's a prick.
    It can’t have taken all day to organise the private jet surely. Just very bizarre. One can only conclude he was supposed to be on the plane from Northolt but for reasons we might read about in his book serialisation, he was not on board when it left.
    He had to wait until someone on the US west coast authorised a change to the Netflix filming schedule ?
  • I appreciate the detective work, but I'm not sure even Agatha Christie would have been tempted by the plot line to write "At Exactly What Time Did The Queen Die?".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Typical church sound system, going wrong at the crucial moment,
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
    The PMs office have stared she was informed of the Queens death at 4.30pm yesterday. Ardern says she was woken at approx 5.30 am (4.30pm BST) by a policeman shining a light in her face and informing her to take a call. So we know heads of government in the Commonwealth were informed at about 4.30pm yesterday. They are the first people informed outside the royal family/immediate household.
    Sorry, where have the PM's office stated this? And do you actually think there would be zero timelag between the PM of the UK being told, and the PM of NZ (who we can take it would be quite wel down any list given both her time zone and her general importance in the scheme of things)?
    In protocol terms Truss and Ardern are equals - the late Queen was their head of State.
    Jesus what is all this waffle about protocol based on a speculative and outdated article in the Guardian? Never mind protocol, IN PRACTICE PMOTUK is going to want and be entitled to a head start of an hour or two over PMONZ.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    On another subject, in the real flesh and blood world, the only person I have spoken to about the queen's death is my wife.
    No one I've spoken to at work has mentioned it. No one I've spoken to at school pick up or drop off has mentioned it, apart from on the context of 'what's going to happen to the 11+?' The proprietor of the sandwich shop talked only of energy prices and business rates and fewer customers. No one at the leisure centre yesterday or at climbing tonight jas memtioned it.
    Perhaps it's too big a subject for small talk. But the utter preoccupation of the media seems starkly out of step with how the real world feels.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,150

    TOPPING said:

    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    It is not just a case of drilling a hole and letting the gas come out. That works with conventional reservoirs because it is possible, through flowing, testing and monitoring, to calculate volumes, baffles and compartmentalisation all from the data collected from a single well. Reservoir engineering is a black art and one I hardly understand but it does This is not the case with fracking. You would need to drill dozens of wells scattered across the countryside every few hundred yards and until you had drilled them and fracked them you would have no idea whether your field was viable.

    If you are drilling on the prairies in the USA or the North German plains in Poland then this is viable. By which I mean it can be done cheaply and with little disturbance to the local community. If you are doing it in Lancashire where you have a village every mile and all manner of other obstructions then it becomes far more expensive to the point of being uneconomic - even before you know if you even have anything worth producing.

    Now I can accept that that can be a price worth paying if the geology turns out to be right. If it doesn't then the company goes bust and someone else has to deal with all the environmental damage that has been done.
    Good points but if companies are willing to sink capital on basis of returns if fracking is in fact viable and clean up costs are covered in advance (e.g. by insurance style payments) then I think it should be allowed. I also think that all resource extraction and infrastructure development schemes should directly compensate local residents (paid for by the developer).
    Agreed but to do that you are going to have to change the whole basis of bankruptcy and liability as well. Because there will be no compensation if the company goes bust. Remember these are not long standing companies with lots of different assets and interests. They were usually set up specifically for the exploitation of Shale gas and will have little in the way of assets beyond a rented office. All the equipment for drilling the wells will be hired in - just as it is in conventional drilling - and if the enterprise fails there will be nothing left to compensate anyone, investors, public or probably the contractors either.

    And I suspect any sane insurance broker looking at the potential liabilities from these operations would run a mile.
    I am sceptical about fracking but wouldn't the government be insurer of last resort?.
    Why? If you can’t purchase insurance to cover a cleanup because you are so likely to go bust, why should the government back you up?
    It shouldn’t
    Oh yes....

    image
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
    The PMs office have stared she was informed of the Queens death at 4.30pm yesterday. Ardern says she was woken at approx 5.30 am (4.30pm BST) by a policeman shining a light in her face and informing her to take a call. So we know heads of government in the Commonwealth were informed at about 4.30pm yesterday. They are the first people informed outside the royal family/immediate household.
    Sorry, where have the PM's office stated this? And do you actually think there would be zero timelag between the PM of the UK being told, and the PM of NZ (who we can take it would be quite wel down any list given both her time zone and her general importance in the scheme of things)?
    From reports saying she was told at 4.30pm with 'Downing Street confirmed' attached
    And Ardern would not be 'well down the list' as its her Head of State who just passed away and she us head of government. Once the decision was taken to inform the PM, they would also inform the various heads of government where HMQ was head of state then prepare to inform the media and pin the note on the palace gates.
    I am not sure why Case gets to tell the PM but there you go
    And yes, id expect as close to zero timelag as possible, its not an empire anymore so all HMQs heads of govt are given the news at roughly the same time and first
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,150

    TOPPING said:

    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    It is not just a case of drilling a hole and letting the gas come out. That works with conventional reservoirs because it is possible, through flowing, testing and monitoring, to calculate volumes, baffles and compartmentalisation all from the data collected from a single well. Reservoir engineering is a black art and one I hardly understand but it does This is not the case with fracking. You would need to drill dozens of wells scattered across the countryside every few hundred yards and until you had drilled them and fracked them you would have no idea whether your field was viable.

    If you are drilling on the prairies in the USA or the North German plains in Poland then this is viable. By which I mean it can be done cheaply and with little disturbance to the local community. If you are doing it in Lancashire where you have a village every mile and all manner of other obstructions then it becomes far more expensive to the point of being uneconomic - even before you know if you even have anything worth producing.

    Now I can accept that that can be a price worth paying if the geology turns out to be right. If it doesn't then the company goes bust and someone else has to deal with all the environmental damage that has been done.
    Good points but if companies are willing to sink capital on basis of returns if fracking is in fact viable and clean up costs are covered in advance (e.g. by insurance style payments) then I think it should be allowed. I also think that all resource extraction and infrastructure development schemes should directly compensate local residents (paid for by the developer).
    Agreed but to do that you are going to have to change the whole basis of bankruptcy and liability as well. Because there will be no compensation if the company goes bust. Remember these are not long standing companies with lots of different assets and interests. They were usually set up specifically for the exploitation of Shale gas and will have little in the way of assets beyond a rented office. All the equipment for drilling the wells will be hired in - just as it is in conventional drilling - and if the enterprise fails there will be nothing left to compensate anyone, investors, public or probably the contractors either.

    And I suspect any sane insurance broker looking at the potential liabilities from these operations would run a mile.
    I am sceptical about fracking but wouldn't the government be insurer of last resort?.
    Why? If you can’t purchase insurance to cover a cleanup because you are so likely to go bust, why should the government back you up?
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses and pay off the politicians to make it happen. A billionaires version of the free market.
    Not what happens in the North Sea, for example.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
    The PMs office have stared she was informed of the Queens death at 4.30pm yesterday. Ardern says she was woken at approx 5.30 am (4.30pm BST) by a policeman shining a light in her face and informing her to take a call. So we know heads of government in the Commonwealth were informed at about 4.30pm yesterday. They are the first people informed outside the royal family/immediate household.
    Sorry, where have the PM's office stated this? And do you actually think there would be zero timelag between the PM of the UK being told, and the PM of NZ (who we can take it would be quite wel down any list given both her time zone and her general importance in the scheme of things)?
    In protocol terms Truss and Ardern are equals - the late Queen was their head of State.
    Jesus what is all this waffle about protocol based on a speculative and outdated article in the Guardian? Never mind protocol, IN PRACTICE PMOTUK is going to want and be entitled to a head start of an hour or two over PMONZ.
    I’ll take an “outdated” article in the Guardian (trans. A well established and long prepared plan which has been around for decades”) over stuff you are making up because you think you know better….
  • FossFoss Posts: 567
    "Lifelong commitment" - that seems to rule out abdication.
  • William now Prince of Wales
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110
    William is now Prince of Wales.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    William is made Prince of Wales.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110
    Huh, are we watching the same thing? ;)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    "Why was Kemi Badenoch overlooked for education secretary?
    Neil Davenport"

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/09/why-was-kemi-badenoch-overlooked-for-education-secretary/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Foss said:

    "Lifelong commitment" - that seems to rule out abdication.

    Yes, I was thinking that as well.

    Although of course, he could uphold constitutional principles as king emeritus in other ways.

    I thought the most interesting thing, other than the announcement William is to become Prince of Wales, was the amount of time he spent talking about Camilla.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Wow, what an astonishing speech. How he managed to keep himself composed for that, when nearly everyone watching him was reaching for the tissues.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    IshmaelZ said:

    ohnotnow said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    I certainly got the impression from watching Angela Rayner's face when she was handed the note for Keir that it was a "Oh, that's terribly sad to hear" rather than, what I'd expect, to be a more "Oh sh*t, holy hell" if it was saying "she's dead".

    Maybe she truly didn't give much of a monkeys - but it really had that look about it.
    Not what happened. She got a note to her, went out presumably to speak to someone on phone or in person, re entered. So the big reveal was not in the note, it was in the conversation.
    And after this they all then tweeted hoping for HMQs recovery?!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Conspiracy Theory:

    Both Truss and Sunak visited the Queen several weeks ago, where photos were taken of them being invited to form a government. The appropriate set of photos was released on Tuesday.

    Meanwhile the Queen has not been with us for a fortnight or more, but it was felt that we needed the PM transition prior to the transition of monarch.

    Do I believe this? Er, no!

    Whether this conspiracy theory is true or the official time scale is accurate, the late Queen must have comprehensively detested Boris Johnson. Putting up a charade as you have suggested, or hanging on until she was rid of him - attagirl!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    That we know she was told at 4.30pm?
    What evidence?
    The official statements of the UK govt and NZ govt corroborating this timescale. I mean yeah they might all be involved in some bizarre conspiracy to defraud the public of the crucial knowledge of when Liz and Jacinda knew but that serms far fetched.
    Ive no idea when HMQ actually died although they say in the release 'this afternoon.
    What official statements? What does NZ have to do with it?
    The PMs office have stared she was informed of the Queens death at 4.30pm yesterday. Ardern says she was woken at approx 5.30 am (4.30pm BST) by a policeman shining a light in her face and informing her to take a call. So we know heads of government in the Commonwealth were informed at about 4.30pm yesterday. They are the first people informed outside the royal family/immediate household.
    Sorry, where have the PM's office stated this? And do you actually think there would be zero timelag between the PM of the UK being told, and the PM of NZ (who we can take it would be quite wel down any list given both her time zone and her general importance in the scheme of things)?
    In protocol terms Truss and Ardern are equals - the late Queen was their head of State.
    Jesus what is all this waffle about protocol based on a speculative and outdated article in the Guardian? Never mind protocol, IN PRACTICE PMOTUK is going to want and be entitled to a head start of an hour or two over PMONZ.
    I’ll take an “outdated” article in the Guardian (trans. A well established and long prepared plan which has been around for decades”) over stuff you are making up because you think you know better….
    I don'tthink I know anything better, i am just inviting you to make a case based on something firmer than an evident liking for the word "protocol." Step back and think about it: why would you rely on a plan which has "been about for decades when1. it is largely about keeping secrets, secret and it has been expounded in detail in a national paper 2. it is largely about comms technology which has advanced more than a bit over the past couple of decades and 3. it was very obvious a couple of months ago that the central event might very well occur in a wholly unprecedented and unforeseen set of circumstances?

    BTW Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) was not on radio 1's playlist yesterday (https://onlineradiobox.com/uk/bbcradio1/playlist/1?cs=uk.bbcradio1)

    everything testable about that article turns out to be shit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Sandpit said:

    Wow, what an astonishing speech. How he managed to keep himself composed for that, when nearly everyone watching him was reaching for the tissues.

    The nation spent 71 years preparing him for it. It would have been seen as extremely dreary if he had fouled it up.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    Perfectly judged by Charles. Excellent.

    We talk about a new incumbency bounce for PMs.

    I wonder if we will get one for Charles now he's King?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    That was perfect.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,198
    edited September 2022
    Interesting speech from Charles there. Thought he came across well on the whole. Quite a lot to unpack. Very much came across as: I won’t meddle, I won’t abdicate, but I want to be a transitional figure - he looked to the next generation and already bestowed the titles re the succession on William
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    rcs1000 said:

    So, the truth is revealed:

    Driver, BigG and RobD are *all* the same person.

    In the big PB multiple identities scandal it is not what I was expecting.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited September 2022

    IshmaelZ said:

    ohnotnow said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    I certainly got the impression from watching Angela Rayner's face when she was handed the note for Keir that it was a "Oh, that's terribly sad to hear" rather than, what I'd expect, to be a more "Oh sh*t, holy hell" if it was saying "she's dead".

    Maybe she truly didn't give much of a monkeys - but it really had that look about it.
    Not what happened. She got a note to her, went out presumably to speak to someone on phone or in person, re entered. So the big reveal was not in the note, it was in the conversation.
    And after this they all then tweeted hoping for HMQs recovery?!
    You will find it a very good practice always to verify your sources

    The whole country will be deeply concerned by the news from Buckingham Palace this lunchtime.

    My thoughts - and the thoughts of people across our United Kingdom - are with Her Majesty The Queen and her family at this time.

    https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1567839967203794944

    The absence of any such "hope" is a smoking gun. Your thoughts can always be with someone who is dead.

    ETA and "the news from Buckingham Palace" is a smokescreen. She is commenting on what is publicly available from the Palace, when obv she is getting info from Scotland.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Lot of Herbert Howells so far in this service. The first hymn, now the first anthem.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    kle4 said:

    Summary of Charles's speech

    • I am going to serve for the remainder of my life too - no abdication talk please
    • Yes, I know I cannot sound off as much as I used to
    • Wills is tops
    • Harry is here too I guess
    And Camilla is the Queen, so take that Diana fans.

    (Ok, he didn't *quite* say it that baldly.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Blimey.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1568282616373059586
    Amazing video of a Russian T-72 fleeing Ukrainian troops, discarding men and then crashing into a tree.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Cookie said:

    At a guess, 50% of the English speaking world know someone who knows someone who has met the queen.

    I came within 100ft of her once. Doesn't make for the best royal anecdote, I need to find another.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ohnotnow said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    I certainly got the impression from watching Angela Rayner's face when she was handed the note for Keir that it was a "Oh, that's terribly sad to hear" rather than, what I'd expect, to be a more "Oh sh*t, holy hell" if it was saying "she's dead".

    Maybe she truly didn't give much of a monkeys - but it really had that look about it.
    Not what happened. She got a note to her, went out presumably to speak to someone on phone or in person, re entered. So the big reveal was not in the note, it was in the conversation.
    And after this they all then tweeted hoping for HMQs recovery?!
    You will find it a very good practice always to verify your sources

    The whole country will be deeply concerned by the news from Buckingham Palace this lunchtime.

    My thoughts - and the thoughts of people across our United Kingdom - are with Her Majesty The Queen and her family at this time.

    https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1567839967203794944

    The absence of any such "hope" is a smoking gun. Your thoughts can always be with someone who is dead.
    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1567843603929616384?t=-EyTUPhVzhfFAYxHBVivaQ&s=19

    Along with the rest of the country, I am deeply worried by the news from Buckingham Palace this afternoon.

    My thoughts are with Her Majesty The Queen and her family at this time, and I join everyone across the United Kingdom in hoping for her recovery.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    Good address by King Charles. Paid tribute to his mother and also looked ahead to his new role. Interesting too he has now decided to give up his charity work in terms of his personal involvement, not surprising given his new duties.

    William as expected created the new Prince of Wales and a greeting for Harry and Meghan too
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So, the truth is revealed:

    Driver, BigG and RobD are *all* the same person.

    In the big PB multiple identities scandal it is not what I was expecting.
    Apparently I need to add an initial to my name.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    I’m surprised if no in Britain cares - as @cookie claims/says - because out here in Portugal they talk about it a lot. As soon as they hear you are British, they trot out a Queen anecdote and frown or sigh or look sad, and they WANT to discuss how it makes them feel. Generally that is: moved and a bit melancholy - “she’s been there all my life” etc

    it feels like one of those universal moments. Not a total shock like 9/11 but nonetheless a shared experience, certainly for anyone over about 45, from what I’ve seen
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Summary of Charles's speech

    • I am going to serve for the remainder of my life too - no abdication talk please
    • Yes, I know I cannot sound off as much as I used to
    • Wills is tops
    • Harry is here too I guess
    And Camilla is the Queen, so take that Diana fans.

    (Ok, he didn't *quite* say it that baldly.)
    He didn't spell out the implications for Catherine of making William Prince of Wales, I noticed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    ping said:

    Not a fan of the new king and queen.

    QEII should be the last. Aside from William & Kate & few minor exceptions at the fringes, her family are pretty universally awful.

    Give thanks to Liz for her service, then be rid of ‘em, I recon.

    Sorry, not happening. Long live our new King and Queen Consort!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,976
    Driver said:

    William is made Prince of Wales.

    What about sword on bonce at a big Welsh castle?

    Until I see that, he isn't.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    HYUFD said:

    Good address by King Charles. Paid tribute to his mother and also looked ahead to his new role. Interesting too he has now decided to give up his charity work in terms of his personal involvement, not surprising given his new duties.

    William as expected created the new Prince of Wales and a greeting for Harry and Meghan too

    I think it was inevitable. His charity work is too closely aligned with his political views.

    It will be interesting to see who, or how, they are carried on. What, for example, happens to the Prince's Trust? I do hope it continues because it does an awful lot of very good work.

    Ah, something not by Howells. I wondered if they might have 'Take Him, Earth, For Cherishing.' But this anthem by Harris is rather nice.
  • TOPPING said:

    Great speech delivered extremely well. I won't be the only one impressed and I've long been a fan.

    All those "skip a generation" types can fuck off.

    People have on the whole underestimated Charles for years. He is not the same person as he was in the 80s and 90s. He has grown up. And he had gravitas tonight. He sounded like a King.
  • kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    William is made Prince of Wales.

    What about sword on bonce at a big Welsh castle?

    Until I see that, he isn't.
    Caernarfon hopefully
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Summary of Charles's speech

    • I am going to serve for the remainder of my life too - no abdication talk please
    • Yes, I know I cannot sound off as much as I used to
    • Wills is tops
    • Harry is here too I guess
    And Camilla is the Queen, so take that Diana fans.

    (Ok, he didn't *quite* say it that baldly.)
    He didn't spell out the implications for Catherine of making William Prince of Wales, I noticed.
    He did, subtly. He called her “Princess”.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    Leon said:

    I’m surprised if no in Britain cares - as @cookie claims/says - because out here in Portugal they talk about it a lot. As soon as they hear you are British, they trot out a Queen anecdote and frown or sigh or look sad, and they WANT to discuss how it makes them feel. Generally that is: moved and a bit melancholy - “she’s been there all my life” etc

    it feels like one of those universal moments. Not a total shock like 9/11 but nonetheless a shared experience, certainly for anyone over about 45, from what I’ve seen

    I have noticed the same thing as cookie, I personally think it’s because of stiff upper lip and not wanting to accidentally emote to acquaintances.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    BBC live update

    In his speech King Charles III comments on his youngest son - the Duke of Sussex - and his wife.

    "I express my love for Prince Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas."


    He didn't say Prince Harry and Meghan, he said Harry and Meghan. If you're going to put it in quotes get it right BBC, unless you are doing a joke quote.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    ydoethur said:

    Perfectly judged by Charles. Excellent.

    We talk about a new incumbency bounce for PMs.

    I wonder if we will get one for Charles now he's King?
    Perhaps I can offer a key difference. Charles is following in the footsteps of a legend. Truss is following in Johnson's footsteps.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    William is made Prince of Wales.

    What about sword on bonce at a big Welsh castle?

    Until I see that, he isn't.
    Caernarfon hopefully
    He should confound everyone and hold it in Brecon Cathedral.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Nigelb said:

    Blimey.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1568282616373059586
    Amazing video of a Russian T-72 fleeing Ukrainian troops, discarding men and then crashing into a tree.

    Videos out of Ukraine yesterday and today, have cheered me up no end at a sad time. :smile:
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    William is made Prince of Wales.

    What about sword on bonce at a big Welsh castle?

    Until I see that, he isn't.
    I wondered about that bit. Presumably they will do the investiture stuff next year around his Coronation.
  • dodrade said:

    Perfectly judged by Charles. Excellent.

    A popular theory/wish among anti-royalists has been that the Queen's popularity was largely personal and would not be inherited by Charles, I think they will be sorely disappointed.
    Eh? From where I'm standing, it was the pro-royalists who didn't like Charles, and as a result were frequently agitating for skipping a generation.
    To which the traditional anti-monarchist response was, 'That's not how YOUR stupid system works!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    ydoethur said:

    Perfectly judged by Charles. Excellent.

    We talk about a new incumbency bounce for PMs.

    I wonder if we will get one for Charles now he's King?
    Perhaps I can offer a key difference. Charles is following in the footsteps of a legend. Truss is following in Johnson's footsteps.
    Oh, he's a legend all right.

    Just as Mordred is.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited September 2022
    Personally I think if someone is made Prince of Wales they should have to earn it with a fresh conquest, like the welsh princes of old. Should be simple as it is a loyal place, so little resistance, but William should raise a feudal levy and make a show of it at least.
  • I have an old radio - I think it was a present for my parent's wedding in 1953.
    It bears the message "By appointment to His Late Majesty King George VI".
    I assume a similar form of words will be used until Charles is actually crowned?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Remember - this could be Boris Johnson.

    She's reading it rather nicely so far. Good sturdy voice. Clear diction.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    edited September 2022
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good address by King Charles. Paid tribute to his mother and also looked ahead to his new role. Interesting too he has now decided to give up his charity work in terms of his personal involvement, not surprising given his new duties.

    William as expected created the new Prince of Wales and a greeting for Harry and Meghan too

    I think it was inevitable. His charity work is too closely aligned with his political views.

    It will be interesting to see who, or how, they are carried on. What, for example, happens to the Prince's Trust? I do hope it continues because it does an awful lot of very good work.

    Ah, something not by Howells. I wondered if they might have 'Take Him, Earth, For Cherishing.' But this anthem by Harris is rather nice.
    I remember it was suggested back in the day that it would become the Princes’ Trust with William and Harry. Sadly I guess it’s down to William unless Edward takes a duty for him. No way His Majesty let’s it die.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ohnotnow said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    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
    Are you sure? Lots of what we thought we knew is wrong. The Guardian piece was very certai she would come down by train, it now seems she is flying. "Secure lines" are ancient history, voice over 4G is always encrypted so all sorts of new protocols can be envisaged. They must have told Zahawi something pretty close to the truth, to persuade him to go into the chamber and nobble Truss.
    Its very rigid protocol. Truss didnt leave the chamber, shes not going to just carry on if London Bridge has fallen.
    And we have been told she, and the heads of commonwealth realms were informed at 4.30 pm BST.
    Most likely without wanting to sound ghoulish is there was an event such a sudden stroke or similar around lunchtime that left HM unconscious and the doctors were aware it was likely unsurvivable. I don’t think Truss was informed in the chamber that HM had died, though suspect she was told that it was likely imminent.
    Yes, i think she was told basically HMQ gravely ill, London Bridge imminent
    How can you tell? What piece of circumstantial evidence exists for the "gravely ill" hypothesis and rules out the "dead" hypothesis?
    I certainly got the impression from watching Angela Rayner's face when she was handed the note for Keir that it was a "Oh, that's terribly sad to hear" rather than, what I'd expect, to be a more "Oh sh*t, holy hell" if it was saying "she's dead".

    Maybe she truly didn't give much of a monkeys - but it really had that look about it.
    Not what happened. She got a note to her, went out presumably to speak to someone on phone or in person, re entered. So the big reveal was not in the note, it was in the conversation.
    And after this they all then tweeted hoping for HMQs recovery?!
    You will find it a very good practice always to verify your sources

    The whole country will be deeply concerned by the news from Buckingham Palace this lunchtime.

    My thoughts - and the thoughts of people across our United Kingdom - are with Her Majesty The Queen and her family at this time.

    https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1567839967203794944

    The absence of any such "hope" is a smoking gun. Your thoughts can always be with someone who is dead.
    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1567843603929616384?t=-EyTUPhVzhfFAYxHBVivaQ&s=19

    Along with the rest of the country, I am deeply worried by the news from Buckingham Palace this afternoon.

    My thoughts are with Her Majesty The Queen and her family at this time, and I join everyone across the United Kingdom in hoping for her recovery.
    Yes. he is not as bright as Liz. But the whole thing is a fiction because the news from Buckingham Palace this afternoon which was available to the the rest of the country to be deeply worried by, is limited to

    "Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.

    The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral."

    and we know for certain that he had received more recent and more worrying information than that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,150
    edited September 2022
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Blimey.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1568282616373059586
    Amazing video of a Russian T-72 fleeing Ukrainian troops, discarding men and then crashing into a tree.

    Videos out of Ukraine yesterday and today, have cheered me up no end at a sad time. :smile:
    Some years back I knew a chap who did corporate event days of tank driving - actually Abbotts, striped out.

    He said the the joy of watching what people would do was only tempered by the knowledge that he would have to fire up his Centurion recovery vehicle to drag the vehicle out of the woods/ditch/etc

    EDIT: Watching the video again - something wrong with the driver (injured? dead?), the rest of the crew bails out?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,976

    Perfectly judged by Charles. Excellent.

    Almost too good. You think, "ok cool, what's the big deal, we move on."
  • Cookie said:

    At a guess, 50% of the English speaking world know someone who knows someone who has met the queen.

    Well, I had a line manager who once made tea for our King, while he was Prince of Wales, though he didn't drink it. I don't think I have as close a connection to QEII.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    ping said:

    Not a fan of the new king and queen.

    QEII should be the last. Aside from William & Kate & few minor exceptions at the fringes, her family are pretty universally awful.

    Give thanks to Liz for her service, then be rid of ‘em, I recon.

    Too late for QEII to be the last, CIII is already in post. But there's time to work at it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Perfectly judged by Charles. Excellent.

    We talk about a new incumbency bounce for PMs.

    I wonder if we will get one for Charles now he's King?
    Perhaps I can offer a key difference. Charles is following in the footsteps of a legend. Truss is following in Johnson's footsteps.
    Oh, he's a legend all right.

    Just as Mordred is.
    Liz Truss smashing Romans. Johnson must be spitting feathers. The Queen trolled him to the end. What an awesome lady!
  • FossFoss Posts: 567
    kle4 said:

    Personally I think if someone is made Prince of Wales they should have to earn it with a fresh conquest, like the welsh princes of old. Should be simple as it is a loyal place, so little resistance, but William should raise a feudal levy and make a show of it at least.

    Paintballing against the CF10 Massive?
  • I doubt in Liz Truss's wildest imagination could she ever have expected to deliver that reading, just 3 days after becoming Prime Minister.

    My wife has just said she is really growing into her role.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    ydoethur said:

    Remember - this could be Boris Johnson.

    She's reading it rather nicely so far. Good sturdy voice. Clear diction.

    She is not a great speaker generally, very polished and careful. But if you are reciting a passage in a big echoey church, then careful, solid presentation is probably what you want.
  • kinabalu said:

    Perfectly judged by Charles. Excellent.

    Almost too good. You think, "ok cool, what's the big deal, we move on."
    Which is the job. Stability, continuity and reassurance.

    He's done good.

    And note the significance of what he's pledged: lifelong service just like The Queen.

    That's a huge vow, and a very serious one.
This discussion has been closed.