Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Roseberry liked to flagellate young men, Melbourne liked to flagellate young maidservants.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Edmund, and you are surely aware that every word he wrote was pure fantasy?
Anyways. See you later. Thanks for the good wishes. Got myself a 15 minutes (walk) commute. Won't be sitting around finding folk jobs from home anymore. Are you an alcoholic, drug addict, paedophile or otherwise violent offender? No? Have you tried ASDA? Dull. Something more interesting at least.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Apparently it is up to Biden who he invites in the US entourage, and there is some speculation he might invite all the former presidents, each of whom offered very generous tributes to the late Queen.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Reckon that, if it really is Biden's call then Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama AND Trump will be part of US delegation AND fly over together in Air Force One.
Always possible that Trump might refuse on those terms, and thus get zero invite.
But I doubt it.
EDIT - And Carter might not make it, due to health.
Biden and Trump together in the same few hundred metre tube of aluminium at 30K feet for five hours will be something to watch.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
Outrageous effrontery! By whom.
"Why does the word who exist if you're never allowed to say it?"
With 5547 out of 6578 electoral districts counted, the actual result so far (GE2018 in brackets):
Left 6.7% (8.0%) Social Democrats 30.5% (28.3%) Greens 5.0% (4.4%) Centre 6.7% (8.6%) Liberals 4.6% (5.5%) Moderates 19.0% (19.8%) Christian Democrats 5.4% (6.3%) Sweden Democrats 20.7% (17.5%) oth 1.5% (1.6%)
Turnout: ?
Looks like the Centre and Left have let the Social Democrats down.
Moderates now little changed from 2018 and with Liberal, Christian Democrat and Sweden Democrat support it could form a government. That would be the first right of centre win in an election in a Western nation since Boris' outside Japan
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Roseberry liked to flagellate young men, Melbourne liked to flagellate young maidservants.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Edmund, and you are surely aware that every word he wrote was pure fantasy?
Matthew Parris believes that his account of the affair was true.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Roseberry liked to flagellate young men, Melbourne liked to flagellate young maidservants.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Of course Sir Edward Backhouse was a continental liar on at least two continents.
But may well have been telling something approaching the truth in this instance.
Considerable speculation re: Lord Rosebery, prosecution of Oscar Wilde and death of Lord Drumlanrig, heir to Marquis of Queensberry.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
She was too "fast" for the Palace. Whereas Diana was a virgin.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
She was too "fast" for the Palace. Whereas Diana was a virgin.
Absurd but true.
Also, Camilla had married someone else!
Yes, but believe that was AFTER the Windsor No-Brains Trust gave her the Royal Flush.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Roseberry liked to flagellate young men, Melbourne liked to flagellate young maidservants.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Of course Sir Edward Backhouse was a continental liar on at least two continents.
But may well have been telling something approaching the truth in this instance.
Considerable speculation re: Lord Rosebery, prosecution of Oscar Wilde and death of Lord Drumlanrig, heir to Marquis of Queensberry.
I'm not convinced that he truly participated in gay orgies, while the Empress of China looked on and masturbated.
In theory, an invitation could be extended to the PM of NZ, the GG, the Head of the Armed Forces, the Chief Justice, and potentially the Archbishop of NZ.
There are five former PMs still alive. Also five former GGs.
That’s fifteen, just for NZ!
But I don’t expect that at all. Perhaps even, just the PM and GG.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
She was too "fast" for the Palace. Whereas Diana was a virgin.
Absurd but true.
Also, Camilla had married someone else!
Yes, but believe that was AFTER the Windsor No-Brains Trust gave her the Royal Flush.
She was already two timing Charles with her future husband. Which seems a rather good reason to veto her.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Roseberry liked to flagellate young men, Melbourne liked to flagellate young maidservants.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Of course Sir Edward Backhouse was a continental liar on at least two continents.
But may well have been telling something approaching the truth in this instance.
Considerable speculation re: Lord Rosebery, prosecution of Oscar Wilde and death of Lord Drumlanrig, heir to Marquis of Queensberry.
EDMUND
Educated Winchester and Merton btw, covering both bases in the recent PM face off
I read Hermit of Peking about 30 years ago, when H T-R thought B's own work was too feelthy ever to be published, now note that Manchu Decadence is to be had for a fiver on kindle, huzzah.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
She was too "fast" for the Palace. Whereas Diana was a virgin.
Absurd but true.
Also, Camilla had married someone else!
Yes, but believe that was AFTER the Windsor No-Brains Trust gave her the Royal Flush.
She was already two timing Charles with her future husband. Which seems a rather good reason to veto her.
Not sure I accept your characterization above. In fact, sure I do NOT accept it.
Anyway, fail to see relevance to future of the Crown, or the UK. OR the price of tea in China for that matter.
Interesting to see how different countries’ election results drift away from the exit poll in different directions as different types of local area report votes. Sweden seems to be drifting rightwards as the evening goes on. The US drifts leftwards. UK rightwards.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not something I’ve focused on because I couldn’t give a shit, but my recollection is that Charles and Camilla were out of touch between the late 70s and mid 80s.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
Looks like Russia has executed a fairly comprehensive cruise missiling of the majority of Ukriane's major non nuclear power stations.
That is less than optimal for Ukraine.
I know it’s not something they care about but isn’t deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure against the rules?
I think both parts of that statement are correct.
Well against the rules of war, not sure about the rules of special military operation.
My questions would be why did they not do this before? and how difficult will it be to reparse, I hear on twitter that the damage in Karkive has mostly been fixed already but the rest of the regens its not looking so simple.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not something I’ve focused on because I couldn’t give a shit, but my recollection is that Charles and Camilla were out of touch between the late 70s and mid 80s.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not something I’ve focused on because I couldn’t give a shit, but my recollection is that Charles and Camilla were out of touch between the late 70s and mid 80s.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
"I know nothing about it, but I am going to tell you all about it anyway." How many different ways do you think you can have it?
Interesting to see how different countries’ election results drift away from the exit poll in different directions as different types of local area report votes. Sweden seems to be drifting rightwards as the evening goes on. The US drifts leftwards. UK rightwards.
In US, time zones have impact, along with later poll closing hours in New York State and some other eastern urban areas compared to early closing times in Indiana and Kentucky.
In WA State 2022 Primary, the latter vote counts in Seattle favored Democrats & progressives, while in most of the rest of the state later counts tended Republican & conservative.
In Seattle, more progressive voters have typically voted later than other for many years. Whereas Trumps antic during & reaction to 2020 election turned many MAGA GOPers into last-minute voters.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
She was too "fast" for the Palace. Whereas Diana was a virgin.
Absurd but true.
Also, Camilla had married someone else!
Yes, but believe that was AFTER the Windsor No-Brains Trust gave her the Royal Flush.
She was already two timing Charles with her future husband. Which seems a rather good reason to veto her.
Not sure I accept your characterization above. In fact, sure I do NOT accept it.
Anyway, fail to see relevance to future of the Crown, or the UK. OR the price of tea in China for that matter.
You were the one insulting the intelligence of the royal family, who were making a rather sound decision. The fact she continued her affair with the heir to the throne after he was married shows her poor character.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
You ought to meet some people who have been in genuinely awful situations.
When he was single he could have married any single woman he wanted, assuming she wanted to marry him. Easy-peasy: if mumsy objected, tell her to do one. If she still objected, go and spend 0.0001% of his wealth on marrying her abroad. If the Foreign Office refused to apostillise his birth certificate, take them to court.
Utilising some young woman who was found from somewhere and whom mumsy and pater thought was so eligible, letting love-of-his-life go and marry someone else, but continuing to screw her, never mind that said young woman who'd borne him two children was going crackers under the pressure, and could easily have topped herself - those aren't the actions of a reasonable person put in difficult circumstances. They're the actions of a weak immature creep who uses other people like objects and can't take responsibility for his own actions, always preferring to blame someone else, ostensibly because he was "born into" this, that, or the other - a complete lie because he can stick two fingers up at the whole show whenever he wants and he chooses not to. It's not other people who choose for him. He chooses. He may not seem like one, but he's a grownup man.
What did I just read?
The latest shit screed from a Russian troll.
They don’t care what the topic is - they just want to divide and disrupte.
The figures are not changing much now. Looks like it’ll be the final 2 or 3 mandates on Wednesday that’ll decide the outcome.
Bit of a farce that the party of 19% looks like they’ll provide the PM. It’ll be a horribly weak government. I suspect that the Moderates will profoundly regret their choice in the years ahead.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Roseberry liked to flagellate young men, Melbourne liked to flagellate young maidservants.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Of course Sir Edward Backhouse was a continental liar on at least two continents.
But may well have been telling something approaching the truth in this instance.
Considerable speculation re: Lord Rosebery, prosecution of Oscar Wilde and death of Lord Drumlanrig, heir to Marquis of Queensberry.
EDMUND
Educated Winchester and Merton btw, covering both bases in the recent PM face off
I read Hermit of Peking about 30 years ago, when H T-R thought B's own work was too feelthy ever to be published, now note that Manchu Decadence is to be had for a fiver on kindle, huzzah.
Most interesting thing about Trevor-Roper's bio-expose of Backhouse, is that Lord Daycare (sp) shortly afterward "authenticated" the Hitler "Diaries".
Guy who just wrote a book about a con artist, falls hook, line & retainer, for an even bigger con artist.
Looks like Russia has executed a fairly comprehensive cruise missiling of the majority of Ukriane's major non nuclear power stations.
That is less than optimal for Ukraine.
I know it’s not something they care about but isn’t deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure against the rules?
I think both parts of that statement are correct.
Well against the rules of war, not sure about the rules of special military operation.
My questions would be why did they not do this before? and how difficult will it be to reparse, I hear on twitter that the damage in Karkive has mostly been fixed already but the rest of the regens its not looking so simple.
Because if your story is you are coming to liberate a grateful population from the evil Nazi rulers in a 3 day operation then blowing up the heating and lighting is gauche and unnecessary.
Russia has been clinging to the lie for months now. The Kharkiv humiliation seems to be a scales falling from their eyes moment.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Apparently it is up to Biden who he invites in the US entourage, and there is some speculation he might invite all the former presidents, each of whom offered very generous tributes to the late Queen.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Reckon that, if it really is Biden's call then Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama AND Trump will be part of US delegation AND fly over together in Air Force One.
Always possible that Trump might refuse on those terms, and thus get zero invite.
But I doubt it.
EDIT - And Carter might not make it, due to health.
You really think there’s any chance Trump would decline a ringside seat at the media event of the century?
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
She wasn’t a virgin. Apparently that was still an issue in the 70s
Interesting to see how different countries’ election results drift away from the exit poll in different directions as different types of local area report votes. Sweden seems to be drifting rightwards as the evening goes on. The US drifts leftwards. UK rightwards.
The exit poll has been almost 100% accurate in the most recent UK elections.
Amazing stuff. Putin's TV spin doctors and fellow travellers falling out about who is to blame for the disaster.
Julia Davis @JuliaDavisNews Life comes at you fast: pundits on Russian TV realize that their military is failing and their country is in trouble. They are starting to play the blame game. Some of them finally understand that their genocidal denial of the Ukrainian identity isn't working in Russia's favor.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Apparently it is up to Biden who he invites in the US entourage, and there is some speculation he might invite all the former presidents, each of whom offered very generous tributes to the late Queen.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Reckon that, if it really is Biden's call then Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama AND Trump will be part of US delegation AND fly over together in Air Force One.
Always possible that Trump might refuse on those terms, and thus get zero invite.
But I doubt it.
EDIT - And Carter might not make it, due to health.
You really think there’s any chance Trump would decline a ringside seat at the media event of the century?
He might be worried people would notice the crowds were far larger than when he became President?
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not something I’ve focused on because I couldn’t give a shit, but my recollection is that Charles and Camilla were out of touch between the late 70s and mid 80s.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
That's not true. We have leaked phone calls!
From the mid 80s… I was at prep school at the time which would put it after 1984
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not something I’ve focused on because I couldn’t give a shit, but my recollection is that Charles and Camilla were out of touch between the late 70s and mid 80s.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
"I know nothing about it, but I am going to tell you all about it anyway." How many different ways do you think you can have it?
No it means that is my recollection but I haven’t spent an hour on Google fact checking
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Apparently it is up to Biden who he invites in the US entourage, and there is some speculation he might invite all the former presidents, each of whom offered very generous tributes to the late Queen.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Reckon that, if it really is Biden's call then Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama AND Trump will be part of US delegation AND fly over together in Air Force One.
Always possible that Trump might refuse on those terms, and thus get zero invite.
But I doubt it.
EDIT - And Carter might not make it, due to health.
You really think there’s any chance Trump would decline a ringside seat at the media event of the century?
Find it difficult to believe he would decline, for that very reason.
But would NOT rule out some kind of Grand Hissy Fit.
Looks like Russia has executed a fairly comprehensive cruise missiling of the majority of Ukriane's major non nuclear power stations.
That is less than optimal for Ukraine.
I know it’s not something they care about but isn’t deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure against the rules?
I think both parts of that statement are correct.
Well against the rules of war, not sure about the rules of special military operation.
My questions would be why did they not do this before? and how difficult will it be to reparse, I hear on twitter that the damage in Karkive has mostly been fixed already but the rest of the regens its not looking so simple.
Because if your story is you are coming to liberate a grateful population from the evil Nazi rulers in a 3 day operation then blowing up the heating and lighting is gauche and unnecessary.
Russia has been clinging to the lie for months now. The Kharkiv humiliation seems to be a scales falling from their eyes moment.
If their missiles are functional and accurate enough to hit power station infrastructure, that rather implies that the strikes on blocks of flats were entirely deliberate and not just poor targeting.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Apparently it is up to Biden who he invites in the US entourage, and there is some speculation he might invite all the former presidents, each of whom offered very generous tributes to the late Queen.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Reckon that, if it really is Biden's call then Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama AND Trump will be part of US delegation AND fly over together in Air Force One.
Always possible that Trump might refuse on those terms, and thus get zero invite.
But I doubt it.
EDIT - And Carter might not make it, due to health.
You really think there’s any chance Trump would decline a ringside seat at the media event of the century?
He might be worried people would notice the crowds were far larger than when he became President?
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not something I’ve focused on because I couldn’t give a shit, but my recollection is that Charles and Camilla were out of touch between the late 70s and mid 80s.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
"I know nothing about it, but I am going to tell you all about it anyway." How many different ways do you think you can have it?
No it means that is my recollection but I haven’t spent an hour on Google fact checking
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not something I’ve focused on because I couldn’t give a shit, but my recollection is that Charles and Camilla were out of touch between the late 70s and mid 80s.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
"I know nothing about it, but I am going to tell you all about it anyway." How many different ways do you think you can have it?
No it means that is my recollection but I haven’t spent an hour on Google fact checking
Lazy and conceited fail, there.
No it means I’ve got better things to do at 11.30 at night. But since you are probably drunk I can’t be bothered to argue with you if you won’t engage on the substance. You’ve just post two random insults at me instead. Says a lot about you.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
Yes it was brutal for Charles but the Queen was probably right for the institution.
Could you imagine if the Prince of Wales was now the son of Charles and Camilla not William? Diana brought the glamour and empathy the 21st century monarchy needed
I think what time has shown is that Charles would have been much happier, and his children would have had an easier time of things.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
Outrageous effrontery! By whom.
"Why does the word who exist if you're never allowed to say it?"
Amazing stuff. Putin's TV spin doctors and fellow travellers falling out about who is to blame for the disaster.
Julia Davis @JuliaDavisNews Life comes at you fast: pundits on Russian TV realize that their military is failing and their country is in trouble. They are starting to play the blame game. Some of them finally understand that their genocidal denial of the Ukrainian identity isn't working in Russia's favor.
Amazing stuff. Putin's TV spin doctors and fellow travellers falling out about who is to blame for the disaster.
Julia Davis @JuliaDavisNews Life comes at you fast: pundits on Russian TV realize that their military is failing and their country is in trouble. They are starting to play the blame game. Some of them finally understand that their genocidal denial of the Ukrainian identity isn't working in Russia's favor.
Some unexpected hitting to the heart of the matter there, about either full mobilization or getting out.
The guy talking is the ‘NATO shill’ devil’s advocate, whose purpose was to provide the illusion of debate. Sounds like he actually means it there.
That’s the problem when things go really wrong. The usual lies were never particularly credible, but that never really mattered up to now. At the point when the real world imposes itself on your fantasy, then it does.
Trump was invited to the George H. W. Bush funeral -- but was kept in a sort of "penalty box". (I don't remember the details, but remember smiling at the cleverness of whoever arranged that.)
"Ukrainians, will you understand already that in Russia, only bastards think of you as a fraternal people. For a Russian to say that "a Ukrainian is my brother" is the same thing as saying "my mother is a whore..."
Amazing stuff. Putin's TV spin doctors and fellow travellers falling out about who is to blame for the disaster.
Julia Davis @JuliaDavisNews Life comes at you fast: pundits on Russian TV realize that their military is failing and their country is in trouble. They are starting to play the blame game. Some of them finally understand that their genocidal denial of the Ukrainian identity isn't working in Russia's favor.
Some unexpected hitting to the heart of the matter there, about either full mobilization or getting out.
The guy talking is the ‘NATO shill’ devil’s advocate, whose purpose was to provide the illusion of debate. Sounds like he actually means it there.
That’s the problem when things go really wrong. The usual lies were never particularly credible, but that never really mattered up to now. At the point when the real world imposes itself on your fantasy, then it does.
The Russian authorities currently appear to be a bit stuck between 'Things are still going completely according to plan' and 'No wonder we are finding it hard when the West is backing the Nazi regime so much?'.
If they are going to demand an escalation and long struggle that balancing act cannot really stand.
Now down to 175-174 to the Right. Will the votes left to be counted move the needle?
(and just moved back to 176-173)
My guess is that yes, they will, and slightly in favour of the Right.
But I just cannot shake Ulf Kristersson’s speech out of my mind!! Is he going to “do the dirty” on the Sweden Democrats and suddenly hop into bed with the Social Democrats?!? Seems profoundly unlikely, but that was the clear inference from his speech. Has the fact the Sweden Democrats overtook his party spooked him?
Comments
Won't be sitting around finding folk jobs from home anymore.
Are you an alcoholic, drug addict, paedophile or otherwise violent offender?
No?
Have you tried ASDA?
Dull. Something more interesting at least.
Moderates now little changed from 2018 and with Liberal, Christian Democrat and Sweden Democrat support it could form a government. That would be the first right of centre win in an election in a Western nation since Boris' outside Japan
Team Andersson: 174 MPs
(only a projection)
He certainly liked to embellish and exaggerate.
But may well have been telling something approaching the truth in this instance.
Considerable speculation re: Lord Rosebery, prosecution of Oscar Wilde and death of Lord Drumlanrig, heir to Marquis of Queensberry.
“We are not going to know the result for several days.”
There are five former PMs still alive.
Also five former GGs.
That’s fifteen, just for NZ!
But I don’t expect that at all.
Perhaps even, just the PM and GG.
“Right now Sweden is heading for a change of government!”
to huge cheers.
“Maybe, maybe.”
to silence.
Nobody knows what to think.
Truss’s eyebrows raise…
Educated Winchester and Merton btw, covering both bases in the recent PM face off
I read Hermit of Peking about 30 years ago, when H T-R thought B's own work was too feelthy ever to be published, now note that Manchu Decadence is to be had for a fiver on kindle, huzzah.
Anyway, fail to see relevance to future of the Crown, or the UK. OR the price of tea in China for that matter.
Liberals are down a bit, for example.
The “there were always 3 people in our marriage” was an unsubstantiated accusation by Diana, designed to con the unwary into hating Charles.
“We are now Sweden’s second largest party.”
“We will know the result on Wednesday.”
Well against the rules of war, not sure about the rules of special military operation.
My questions would be why did they not do this before? and how difficult will it be to reparse, I hear on twitter that the damage in Karkive has mostly been fixed already but the rest of the regens its not looking so simple.
In WA State 2022 Primary, the latter vote counts in Seattle favored Democrats & progressives, while in most of the rest of the state later counts tended Republican & conservative.
In Seattle, more progressive voters have typically voted later than other for many years. Whereas Trumps antic during & reaction to 2020 election turned many MAGA GOPers into last-minute voters.
They don’t care what the topic is - they just want to divide and disrupte.
Better ignored.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
A big number, but in may ways I'm surprised its not even bigger.
The figures are not changing much now. Looks like it’ll be the final 2 or 3 mandates on Wednesday that’ll decide the outcome.
Bit of a farce that the party of 19% looks like they’ll provide the PM. It’ll be a horribly weak government. I suspect that the Moderates will profoundly regret their choice in the years ahead.
Guy who just wrote a book about a con artist, falls hook, line & retainer, for an even bigger con artist.
God this argument is tedious. But at least it's a step up from deskgate.
Russia has been clinging to the lie for months now. The Kharkiv humiliation seems to be a scales falling from their eyes moment.
I suggest he stays away from windows.
One to check in the morning.
200,000 overseas votes, plus late Advance Votes, have yet to be counted.
The arrow has just shifted deeper into Right territory:
Now a 3 MP advantage to the Right bloc
Right bloc: 176 seats
Left bloc: 173 seats
Edit: oops… sorry… as you were
Julia Davis
@JuliaDavisNews
Life comes at you fast: pundits on Russian TV realize that their military is failing and their country is in trouble. They are starting to play the blame game. Some of them finally understand that their genocidal denial of the Ukrainian identity isn't working in Russia's favor.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569070513909022720
But would NOT rule out some kind of Grand Hissy Fit.
Government parties?
M + KD + L = 29.0%
C&S party:
SD = 20.7%
Opposition:
S + C + V + MP = 48.7%
(all just projection)
And the last British PM who took office with 49.7% of the vote or more was…….?
Very statesmanlike: initial section about Ukraine.
"Have him arrested at once!" Defence roared. "And arrest the family of the traitor."
"Our Comrade Defence Minister seems far more efficient in arresting our own people than if defeating our enemies," Segertov observed dryly.
Sounds like he actually means it there.
That’s the problem when things go really wrong. The usual lies were never particularly credible, but that never really mattered up to now.
At the point when the real world imposes itself on your fantasy, then it does.
All exterminationist rhetoric.
https://twitter.com/krides/status/1569055684410359810
From a Russian Telegram channel:
"Ukrainians, will you understand already that in Russia, only bastards think of you as a fraternal people. For a Russian to say that "a Ukrainian is my brother" is the same thing as saying "my mother is a whore..."
”I ask for your patience.”
“Sweden needs to gather together.”
“I have great respect for Magdalena Andersson. I thank her for a good match… We can agree on certain issues.” Eg Nato
If they are going to demand an escalation and long struggle that balancing act cannot really stand.
Curiouser and curiouser.
(and just moved back to 176-173)
But I just cannot shake Ulf Kristersson’s speech out of my mind!! Is he going to “do the dirty” on the Sweden Democrats and suddenly hop into bed with the Social Democrats?!? Seems profoundly unlikely, but that was the clear inference from his speech. Has the fact the Sweden Democrats overtook his party spooked him?
I’ve no idea. But I’m knackered. Godnatt.