Organisations thinking for themselves! Whatever next?
This is what Buckingham Palace has announced:
There is no obligation to cancel or postpone events and sporting fixtures, or close entertainment venues during the National Mourning period. This is at the discretion of individual organisations. As a mark of respect, organisations might wish to consider cancelling or postponing events or closing venues on the day of the State Funeral. They are under no obligation to do so and this is entirely at the discretion of individual organisations.
If sporting fixtures or events are planned for the day of the State Funeral, organisations may want to adjust the event timings so they do not clash with the timings of the funeral service and associated processions. As a mark of respect, and in keeping with the tone of National Mourning, organisers may wish to hold a period of silence and/or play the National Anthem at the start of events or sporting fixtures, and players may wish to wear black armbands.
My daughter doesn't understand. She's almost four. But too young, I think.
I've told her what's happened and we are seeing the announcement of the new King. But she keeps saying, "where's the Queen? I want the Queen to come out too."
I fully expect pb.com to tell me the last five left handed monarchs. National and international.
I doubt there's ever been any before, considering that in the past being left handed was something that was driven out of people.
My grandad is left handed but he had his hand tied behind his back so he would learn to write with his correct, right hand instead. This was during WWII.
Another odd and unmentioned sign of how much has changed during HMQ's reign, that left handedness is now so acceptable.
It wasn't that left-handedness was unacceptable, but that writing with the left hand was impractical given the ink in use at the time, which would have been smeared across the page by a trailing left hand.
Depends which you mean. Fourth like the current one.
I sometimes ponder whether, in the unlikely event he had managed to win (he presumably would have needed France to come in more aggressively, which wouldn’t have endeared him to the population), those would have been the circumstances in which there was a revolution, probably focused on England. Everything one reads about him suggests he had his ancestors’ views on parliamentary democracy. Had that happened so early in the life of the Union, it presumably would have fallen.
Don't know - arguably they made a big mnistake turning back at Derby, as there was so little left to protect London. The Hanoverian dynasty was also alien from the locals' point of view.
But there was also the option of ignoring England and remaining in Scotland - declaring the Treaty of Union null and void (which it was of course from his dynastic point of view).
Of course, as you say, it could have ended up with revolutions in both Scotland and/or England, albeit for somewhat different reasons (as indeed happened with his great-grandfather Charles 1, who triggered both).
Fair point on the Hanoverians. It’s that interesting window where we were the country being pushed around and played by other European empires, but no one likes to talk about it.
It's always interesting to consider the road not travelled. Charles Stuart could well have won in 1745.
I fully expect pb.com to tell me the last five left handed monarchs. National and international.
I doubt there's ever been any before, considering that in the past being left handed was something that was driven out of people.
My grandad is left handed but he had his hand tied behind his back so he would learn to write with his correct, right hand instead. This was during WWII.
Another odd and unmentioned sign of how much has changed during HMQ's reign, that left handedness is now so acceptable.
On topic for once. Just sent off this email to my MP:
Dear Mr Lord,
I am writing to you regarding the postponement of football matches this weekend (10 to 11 September). I appreciate that this isn't the most important matter (though, I'd argue, neither is the death of a ninety-six-year-old - and I say that as a supporter of the monarchy), so I won't be offended if you don't have time to respond.
I know (or thought I knew!) that a lot of planning went into preparing for the change of monarch. I had always expected that football would cease from the announcement of the death until after the funeral. However, I was expecting all other major (note that even non-league football has been postponed - it doesn't matter to the Premier League clubs, but those clubs lower down the pyramid are losing real money because of this) sporting and cultural events would be stopping too. I was shocked to learn on Friday 9 September that the government had not mandated this and instead left it up to individual organisations.
It irritates me greatly that rugby, cricket and golf are continuing this weekend, whilst I am unable to watch my team play football.
I'm sure the government would say that it was up to the football authorities to decide. However, football is subject to much greater scrutiny than other sports and cultural events. The government is (or, at least, was) looking at setting up a football regulator (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-next-steps-towards-delivering-major-reform-of-football-in-england). The football authorities worry about how things would look in a way that other sports do not.
If the government wasn't going to mandate the shutdown of "fun" things until after the funeral, they should have encouraged events to carry on. If the government wants to help football fans, they can start by apologising for not ensuring that football went ahead this weekend.
I'm also concerned for next weekend. The reaction to the postponements this weekend has not been good. But next weekend, I fear that some matches will have to be postponed due to police resourcing issues. From time to time that kind of thing happens anyway (see the postponement of Brighton v Crystal Palace due to rail strikes, for example), but it won't go down well a week after games were unnecessarily postponed.
As I said at the start, there are far bigger things going on at the moment. However, this was something that the government could have prepared for. This was something the government could have sorted out, but when it came to it, they didn't.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully disagree. It's not important enough to bother politics with. Discretion and difference of mind is part of a free society. Accept it all tolerantly.
So do you think it should have been left up to individual clubs? If Mansfield Town and Bradford City decided they wanted to play today, should they have been allowed to?
The point is, there isn't really discretion here. It's not like post-Hillsborough when Liverpool were allowed time before resuming playing.
On the subject of Ukraine, my personal view is that the one thing the Russians cannot afford is for thousands - or tens of thousands - of their troops to be captured.
Dead. Injured. These can be hidden, at least in the short term.
But captured troops in Ukraine is a massive problem. Because those troops can speak. And their mothers will agitate for their return.
If there are mass captures, then I think Putin's days are numbered.
You’ve been suggesting a possible Russian collapse for a couple of weeks. You made me sit up and read, and realise you could be right. So: chapeau
As I recall various commentators were saying that the Russians had one more offensive of reserves left.
@Nigelb its like the Tet Offensive in its use of partisan warfare/sabotage behind American lines, all synchronised superbly with an outright attack on the front
Tet came as a total shock to the USA, at a time when the Americans complacently thought the war was quietening down with no major moves
In many ways thereafter the Tet was a failure for Hanoi and the Yanks pushed the VC back quite easily
But Tet broke the American will to fight. It showed Americans at home the war was unwinnable and the North would never give up, and would endure any cost. From that moment Saigon 73 was inevitable
On our first (and only) trip to Vietnam we were taken around the Chu Chi tunnels. Impressive. And I had the chance to do some target practice with a Klashnikoff AK 47.
First level tunnels? Or did you go down to the second level as well? Damn, that was claustrophobic! And the humidity was unbearable.
It brought it home that the Americans were never going to win against an army that was so innovative - and would endure that level of privation.
I was too big to get down into the tunnels! It wasn't my height but my girth!! But you're right about the claustrophobia, and and my thoughts about the result of the war were very much the same as yours; I said to the guide afterwards that I now knew exactly why the Vietcong won!
I fully expect pb.com to tell me the last five left handed monarchs. National and international.
I doubt there's ever been any before, considering that in the past being left handed was something that was driven out of people.
My grandad is left handed but he had his hand tied behind his back so he would learn to write with his correct, right hand instead. This was during WWII.
Another odd and unmentioned sign of how much has changed during HMQ's reign, that left handedness is now so acceptable.
I was told my parents were encouraged to stop me being left handed (1950s) They didn't (or if they did it didn't work), although by the nature of life I am right handed where there weren't alternatives at the time (scissors, peelers, playing cards)
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
On the subject of Ukraine, my personal view is that the one thing the Russians cannot afford is for thousands - or tens of thousands - of their troops to be captured.
Dead. Injured. These can be hidden, at least in the short term.
But captured troops in Ukraine is a massive problem. Because those troops can speak. And their mothers will agitate for their return.
If there are mass captures, then I think Putin's days are numbered.
You’ve been suggesting a possible Russian collapse for a couple of weeks. You made me sit up and read, and realise you could be right. So: chapeau
As I recall various commentators were saying that the Russians had one more offensive of reserves left.
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
My daughter doesn't understand. She's almost four. But too young, I think.
I've told her what's happened and we are seeing the announcement of the new King. But she keeps saying, "where's the Queen? I want the Queen to come out too."
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
Charles’s “kind” comments about Harry and Meghan need to be seen in the context of Harry’s book deal. The firm are terrified about it’s contents.
Thanks to events, they’ve got H&M pinned down. This is their one and only opportunity.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall!
If Charles was smart, he’d recognise that Liz’s disastrous “no half-in-half-out” policy was a major factor contributing to the current situation.
Meghan and Harry's standing among the British people is not quite as bad as Prince Andrew's, but it's a long way below everyone else in the royal family. I don't think they are any sort of threat, however much insight they provide into the problems faced by titled multi-millionaires.
I am far less worried about them than I was 2 years ago, when I think they did real political damage - particularly in the Carribean and amongst younger non-white Britons here.
But, they've shot their bolt now.
Hmm. Arguably Harry identified the right question (what does the Spare Heir do once they're not needed any more?) and had a better answer than his uncles (get the hell out of Dodge and do something else with the rest of his life).
Which is not the answer that the tabloids wanted. And some of the fuckups on the way have been blown up into great evil as a result.
He could have chosen to withdraw from public life and work hard for his charities and causes.
Instead, he (and his wife) has built his ‘career’ on criticising his own family - something which was quickly wearing off before the events of this week.
You'll love Harry's book launch. Especially if it's at the Al Fayed place in Finland.
Why shouldn't a person criticise family members if they've treated them like absolute dirt? In real life, people do it all the time. Who TF does the king think he is?
I wonder whether Harry will be allowed to his grandmother's funeral.
Most people would be thrilled to enjoy the kind of lifestyle that Harry was given by his family.
@Nigelb its like the Tet Offensive in its use of partisan warfare/sabotage behind American lines, all synchronised superbly with an outright attack on the front
Tet came as a total shock to the USA, at a time when the Americans complacently thought the war was quietening down with no major moves
In many ways thereafter the Tet was a failure for Hanoi and the Yanks pushed the VC back quite easily
But Tet broke the American will to fight. It showed Americans at home the war was unwinnable and the North would never give up, and would endure any cost. From that moment Saigon 73 was inevitable
On our first (and only) trip to Vietnam we were taken around the Chu Chi tunnels. Impressive. And I had the chance to do some target practice with a Klashnikoff AK 47.
First level tunnels? Or did you go down to the second level as well? Damn, that was claustrophobic! And the humidity was unbearable.
It brought it home that the Americans were never going to win against an army that was so innovative - and would endure that level of privation.
I was too big to get down into the tunnels! It wasn't my height but my girth!! But you're right about the claustrophobia, and and my thoughts about the result of the war were very much the same as yours; I said to the guide afterwards that I now knew exactly why the Vietcong won!
Quite a few Vietnamese say the Vietcong lost. They were slaughtered in the Tet offensive and elsewhere. The war was won by the conventional NVA. Which was rather convenient for Hanoi, in some ways.
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
All Charles. Third of his name. King of the Gammons and the Micra Drivers. Owner of Fat Fingers. Shagger of Audrey Roberts Impersonator.
Are Bitter Remoaners turning into Wanky Republicans?
I was kinda joking when I suggested this a couple of days ago. Sad to see it coming true. It’s a helpless cul de sac of impotent rage
There are equivalents on our side of the political spectrum. Peter Hitchens, for example, 'the orc-minded, their conversation dreary and repetitive, filled with hatred and contempt."
Oh for sure. Hitchens is the equally sour mirror image of O’Brien
Both sides have their pro Putin voices, too
I see the Labour Party conference fringe is having a “stop the Ukraine war” event with Corbyn and Andrew Murray and the usual vile Trots. Have they invited any actual Ukrainians? No
But they have invited someone from the Muslim Council of GB
Depends which you mean. Fourth like the current one.
I sometimes ponder whether, in the unlikely event he had managed to win (he presumably would have needed France to come in more aggressively, which wouldn’t have endeared him to the population), those would have been the circumstances in which there was a revolution, probably focused on England. Everything one reads about him suggests he had his ancestors’ views on parliamentary democracy. Had that happened so early in the life of the Union, it presumably would have fallen.
Don't know - arguably they made a big mnistake turning back at Derby, as there was so little left to protect London. The Hanoverian dynasty was also alien from the locals' point of view.
But there was also the option of ignoring England and remaining in Scotland - declaring the Treaty of Union null and void (which it was of course from his dynastic point of view).
Of course, as you say, it could have ended up with revolutions in both Scotland and/or England, albeit for somewhat different reasons (as indeed happened with his great-grandfather Charles 1, who triggered both).
Fair point on the Hanoverians. It’s that interesting window where we were the country being pushed around and played by other European empires, but no one likes to talk about it.
It's always interesting to consider the road not travelled. Charles Stuart could well have won in 1745.
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
Was the Reformation under threat?
That you have to ask shows how effective the secret plot was. Thank goodness Charles sniffed it out.
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
Was the Reformation under threat?
Charles I would imagine is quite High Church like his previous namesake and more Anglo Catholic than his more austere mother
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
Was the Reformation under threat?
Charles I would imagine is quite high Church like his previous namesake and more Anglo Catholic than his more austere mother
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
Was the Reformation under threat?
That you have to ask shows how effective the secret plot was. Thank goodness Charles sniffed it out.
I imagine the scent of incense would have been a clue..
The Reformation stands. The King has promised to defend and secure the Protestant religion in both England and Scotland not return us to Rome and the Vatican
I assume the counter reformation forces will be quaking in their boots.
Ironic that we could soon have an Italian PM who considers herself a Tory and disciple of Roger Scruton.
Depends which you mean. Fourth like the current one.
I sometimes ponder whether, in the unlikely event he had managed to win (he presumably would have needed France to come in more aggressively, which wouldn’t have endeared him to the population), those would have been the circumstances in which there was a revolution, probably focused on England. Everything one reads about him suggests he had his ancestors’ views on parliamentary democracy. Had that happened so early in the life of the Union, it presumably would have fallen.
Don't know - arguably they made a big mnistake turning back at Derby, as there was so little left to protect London. The Hanoverian dynasty was also alien from the locals' point of view.
But there was also the option of ignoring England and remaining in Scotland - declaring the Treaty of Union null and void (which it was of course from his dynastic point of view).
Of course, as you say, it could have ended up with revolutions in both Scotland and/or England, albeit for somewhat different reasons (as indeed happened with his great-grandfather Charles 1, who triggered both).
Fair point on the Hanoverians. It’s that interesting window where we were the country being pushed around and played by other European empires, but no one likes to talk about it.
It's always interesting to consider the road not travelled. Charles Stuart could well have won in 1745.
Yes, Hanoverian regime was novel and not stable.
It could have cut and run like James II in 1688.
Was George I even in the country? I seem to recall being told he spent quite a lot of time in Hanover.
The Ukrainian Kharkiv adventure get ever more spectacular in the speed of their advance.
When the picture was shown with them on the very outskirts of Kupyansk I treated it with caution it deserved. Now they have photos from the centre of town.
On topic for once. Just sent off this email to my MP:
Dear Mr Lord,
I am writing to you regarding the postponement of football matches this weekend (10 to 11 September). I appreciate that this isn't the most important matter (though, I'd argue, neither is the death of a ninety-six-year-old - and I say that as a supporter of the monarchy), so I won't be offended if you don't have time to respond.
I know (or thought I knew!) that a lot of planning went into preparing for the change of monarch. I had always expected that football would cease from the announcement of the death until after the funeral. However, I was expecting all other major (note that even non-league football has been postponed - it doesn't matter to the Premier League clubs, but those clubs lower down the pyramid are losing real money because of this) sporting and cultural events would be stopping too. I was shocked to learn on Friday 9 September that the government had not mandated this and instead left it up to individual organisations.
It irritates me greatly that rugby, cricket and golf are continuing this weekend, whilst I am unable to watch my team play football.
I'm sure the government would say that it was up to the football authorities to decide. However, football is subject to much greater scrutiny than other sports and cultural events. The government is (or, at least, was) looking at setting up a football regulator (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-next-steps-towards-delivering-major-reform-of-football-in-england). The football authorities worry about how things would look in a way that other sports do not.
If the government wasn't going to mandate the shutdown of "fun" things until after the funeral, they should have encouraged events to carry on. If the government wants to help football fans, they can start by apologising for not ensuring that football went ahead this weekend.
I'm also concerned for next weekend. The reaction to the postponements this weekend has not been good. But next weekend, I fear that some matches will have to be postponed due to police resourcing issues. From time to time that kind of thing happens anyway (see the postponement of Brighton v Crystal Palace due to rail strikes, for example), but it won't go down well a week after games were unnecessarily postponed.
As I said at the start, there are far bigger things going on at the moment. However, this was something that the government could have prepared for. This was something the government could have sorted out, but when it came to it, they didn't.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully disagree. It's not important enough to bother politics with. Discretion and difference of mind is part of a free society. Accept it all tolerantly.
So do you think it should have been left up to individual clubs? If Mansfield Town and Bradford City decided they wanted to play today, should they have been allowed to?
The point is, there isn't really discretion here. It's not like post-Hillsborough when Liverpool were allowed time before resuming playing.
The detailed question you ask is an entirely internal matter to football. Maybe the FA has the authority to act and decree for all its members. Maybe not. Whatever, it isn't part of government or constitution and it is trivial in the scheme of things.
Oh God, spare me the Woke takes about white men and Diversity.
Typical of the triumph of the #patriarchy that a woman is replaced by a white male, who then changes the national anthem to be all about himself, and they say that #meghan is self obsessed...
The Ukrainian Kharkiv adventure get ever more spectacular in the speed of their advance.
When the picture was shown with them on the very outskirts of Kupyansk I treated it with caution it deserved. Now they have photos from the centre of town.
Does that mean the cricket is cancelled in Kupyansk as well? I fear for our mutual friend…
I rather go along with my late headmaster who, on the day the Kings death was announced, said that as this was a sad occasion there would not be a holiday!
Oh God, spare me the Woke takes about white men and Diversity.
Typical of the triumph of the #patriarchy that a woman is replaced by a white male, who then changes the national anthem to be all about him, and they say that #meghan is self obsessed...
Has anyone checked what Charles’ preferred pronouns are?
On topic for once. Just sent off this email to my MP:
Dear Mr Lord,
I am writing to you regarding the postponement of football matches this weekend (10 to 11 September). I appreciate that this isn't the most important matter (though, I'd argue, neither is the death of a ninety-six-year-old - and I say that as a supporter of the monarchy), so I won't be offended if you don't have time to respond.
I know (or thought I knew!) that a lot of planning went into preparing for the change of monarch. I had always expected that football would cease from the announcement of the death until after the funeral. However, I was expecting all other major (note that even non-league football has been postponed - it doesn't matter to the Premier League clubs, but those clubs lower down the pyramid are losing real money because of this) sporting and cultural events would be stopping too. I was shocked to learn on Friday 9 September that the government had not mandated this and instead left it up to individual organisations.
It irritates me greatly that rugby, cricket and golf are continuing this weekend, whilst I am unable to watch my team play football.
I'm sure the government would say that it was up to the football authorities to decide. However, football is subject to much greater scrutiny than other sports and cultural events. The government is (or, at least, was) looking at setting up a football regulator (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-next-steps-towards-delivering-major-reform-of-football-in-england). The football authorities worry about how things would look in a way that other sports do not.
If the government wasn't going to mandate the shutdown of "fun" things until after the funeral, they should have encouraged events to carry on. If the government wants to help football fans, they can start by apologising for not ensuring that football went ahead this weekend.
I'm also concerned for next weekend. The reaction to the postponements this weekend has not been good. But next weekend, I fear that some matches will have to be postponed due to police resourcing issues. From time to time that kind of thing happens anyway (see the postponement of Brighton v Crystal Palace due to rail strikes, for example), but it won't go down well a week after games were unnecessarily postponed.
As I said at the start, there are far bigger things going on at the moment. However, this was something that the government could have prepared for. This was something the government could have sorted out, but when it came to it, they didn't.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully disagree. It's not important enough to bother politics with. Discretion and difference of mind is part of a free society. Accept it all tolerantly.
So do you think it should have been left up to individual clubs? If Mansfield Town and Bradford City decided they wanted to play today, should they have been allowed to?
The point is, there isn't really discretion here. It's not like post-Hillsborough when Liverpool were allowed time before resuming playing.
The detailed question you ask is an entirely internal matter to football. Maybe the FA has the authority to act and decree for all its members. Maybe not. Whatever, it isn't part of government or constitution and it is trivial in the scheme of things.
The FA had fucked up? The bunch who decided that “Fit and Proper” includes literal, actual war criminals?
Out of curiosity I went back and read the first dedicated PB thread after the initial Russian invasion. I am somewhat impressed by our measured, resolute and prescient commentary. Quite a few PB-ers were predicting energy crises right from the start. Nobody really embarrasses themselves. Well done us
But I did find an absolute stone cold classic from @Roger
On topic for once. Just sent off this email to my MP:
Dear Mr Lord,
I am writing to you regarding the postponement of football matches this weekend (10 to 11 September). I appreciate that this isn't the most important matter (though, I'd argue, neither is the death of a ninety-six-year-old - and I say that as a supporter of the monarchy), so I won't be offended if you don't have time to respond.
I know (or thought I knew!) that a lot of planning went into preparing for the change of monarch. I had always expected that football would cease from the announcement of the death until after the funeral. However, I was expecting all other major (note that even non-league football has been postponed - it doesn't matter to the Premier League clubs, but those clubs lower down the pyramid are losing real money because of this) sporting and cultural events would be stopping too. I was shocked to learn on Friday 9 September that the government had not mandated this and instead left it up to individual organisations.
It irritates me greatly that rugby, cricket and golf are continuing this weekend, whilst I am unable to watch my team play football.
I'm sure the government would say that it was up to the football authorities to decide. However, football is subject to much greater scrutiny than other sports and cultural events. The government is (or, at least, was) looking at setting up a football regulator (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-next-steps-towards-delivering-major-reform-of-football-in-england). The football authorities worry about how things would look in a way that other sports do not.
If the government wasn't going to mandate the shutdown of "fun" things until after the funeral, they should have encouraged events to carry on. If the government wants to help football fans, they can start by apologising for not ensuring that football went ahead this weekend.
I'm also concerned for next weekend. The reaction to the postponements this weekend has not been good. But next weekend, I fear that some matches will have to be postponed due to police resourcing issues. From time to time that kind of thing happens anyway (see the postponement of Brighton v Crystal Palace due to rail strikes, for example), but it won't go down well a week after games were unnecessarily postponed.
As I said at the start, there are far bigger things going on at the moment. However, this was something that the government could have prepared for. This was something the government could have sorted out, but when it came to it, they didn't.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully disagree. It's not important enough to bother politics with. Discretion and difference of mind is part of a free society. Accept it all tolerantly.
So do you think it should have been left up to individual clubs? If Mansfield Town and Bradford City decided they wanted to play today, should they have been allowed to?
The point is, there isn't really discretion here. It's not like post-Hillsborough when Liverpool were allowed time before resuming playing.
The detailed question you ask is an entirely internal matter to football. Maybe the FA has the authority to act and decree for all its members. Maybe not. Whatever, it isn't part of government or constitution and it is trivial in the scheme of things.
But my view is that football has only done it because it is expected to do it. The posho sports are much more bolshy when it comes to this sort of thing.
If the government wasn't going order than no one is to have fun, they should have made sure that everything carried on as normal.
Out of curiosity I went back and read the first dedicated PB thread after the initial Russian invasion. I am somewhat impressed by our measured, resolute and prescient commentary. Quite a few PB-ers were predicting energy crises right from the start. Nobody really embarrasses themselves. Well done us
But I did find an absolute stone cold classic from @Roger
His first reaction to the Ukraine war?
“Time for NATO to disband.“
I recall him saying, as he headed to Cannes (I think) that the mood there would be very down, since a number of people had lost their yachts as a result of sanctions.
Comments
Meanwhile it’s good to see Gordon Brown bending Boris’ ear.
But the archbishops aren’t wearing black.
I've told her what's happened and we are seeing the announcement of the new King. But she keeps saying, "where's the Queen? I want the Queen to come out too."
Choked up a bit.
Let them grieve in private.
The point is, there isn't really discretion here. It's not like post-Hillsborough when Liverpool were allowed time before resuming playing.
They were jeered at by the usual suspects.
The Russians had their offensive.
This is the Ukrainian counter offensive.
100 Days Offensive comes to mind…
Then it would be "In America, they lynch negroes."
"If it was left to young people Corbyn would now be PM." And Putin would be in Kyiv.
But even the most naive knew he a wrong 'un.
It could have cut and run like James II in 1688.
https://twitter.com/threshedthought/status/1568509746268848128?s=21&t=2_klis10nnsPs8V4ZqijFQ
How much inheritance tax will the Queen’s estate be paying?
Ironic that we could soon have an Italian PM who considers herself a Tory and disciple of Roger Scruton.
I shall put in a FOI request.
She's ended up giving her a bigger and more historically significant role than she has as PM today.
When the picture was shown with them on the very outskirts of Kupyansk I treated it with caution it deserved. Now they have photos from the centre of town.
Hurrah, God save the King.
I'm pleased that you appreciate it
I am shocked, shocked etc….
But I did find an absolute stone cold classic from @Roger
His first reaction to the Ukraine war?
“Time for NATO to disband.“
If the government wasn't going order than no one is to have fun, they should have made sure that everything carried on as normal.