Just realised it's the 21st anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Almost nothing made of it. Not even in New York Times.
There were some fireworks last night, which could be heard in Manhattan but apparently we’re part of an Italian festival across the Hudson in New Jersey.
Some gripes on Twitter about it being inappropriate on the eve of September 11.
It's interesting how no-one ever talks about the fact that 9/11 couldn't have happened if the US had had the same security procedures for domestic flights that the UK had at the time. It's as if you can talk about everything to do with 9/11 except the most important aspect of it.
Is that true?
I traveled extensively in the US before 9/11, and you always had to step through X-ray machines.
The reality is that airport security doesn't catch everything. Indeed, the numbers are really quite scary about the percentage of weapons that are not spotted.
And if the weapons you carry onboard are such that a normal person could have accidentally left in their luggage (i.e. a kitchen knife), then all you will ever get from airport security is ticking off.
Allowing knifes of up to four inches to be carried was the biggest loophole.
Several of the bomber were identified for enhanced pre-boarding checks, but this only affected their checked baggage and, in a couple of cases, an additional x-Ray scan.
There is a stack of what-ifs for 9/11; for example, what if the original air controller had heard the “we have planes” when it was first transmitted, rather than having to wait twenty minutes for the tapes to be pulled and examined, because he had been distracted and missed it.
But the bottom line is that no-one involved could imagine, in advance, what was going to happen - there was no precedent for it - and therefore the many things that we see could have been done, with hindsight, were unimaginable in advance. Even when the military got shoot-down authority, they didn’t tell the fighter pilots, for fear a passenger plane would get shot down by accident.
An interesting rarely mentioned aspect is the suggestion that there was a fifth group of hijackers ready to go on one of the planes that never took off, because all flights were grounded.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Of all the English-speaking countries New Zealand is possibly the one that has changed the least since the 1950s.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual influence on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's done it at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; all these things not so much now.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Of all the English-speaking countries New Zealand is possibly the one that has changed the least since the 1950s.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Can you give some examples of his mother's brightness?
Did she lose the horsey paracosm or keep it into her adult years? I'm not against paracosms, so I'm not trying to be nasty, but...let's just say that long-lasting paracosms can be dangerous.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Of all the English-speaking countries New Zealand is possibly the one that has changed the least since the 1950s.
It certainly felt that way when we visited or son in 2005 - 2007 - 2009 and finally in 2011 before he emigrated to Vancouver in 2015
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
This is a good example of petty-minded authoritarianism.
No, if it is real it is an example of idiocy, since there's no way any official guidance suggested such a thing would be a way of showing respect, and certainly not for that length of time.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
rcs1000 - Jim Miller said: "IN THE US, life is worse for young people now than it was in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties -- in some ways. And better in other ways.
The most important way it is worse HERE is the breakdown of families. A young person is far less [likely] to have had two parents in their lives while growing up, than a young person would have IN THE FIFTIES, AND Even MOST OF The SIXTIES." (I bolded some of the original to make it easier to see what I said, originally.)
I still don't think that stacks up: simply the family unit is (on average) more secure now than in the 80s.
You might be able to make it work for earlier decades, but on pretty much every metric, families are in better shape in 2022 than in 1988
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
I can't actually think of anyone who combined views on architecture, land and the earth, and religion into some sort of programme before him, in the last century. A pretty off-centre and outlying combination for the late 20th century. It might not be Socratic , and it may have been done because he had access to and a platform for all these things, but the fact remains.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
It strikes me that this fails to acknowledge the change in the monarchy that has been ongoing for some time. It has become less about deference and more about service. And it has also, in typical British character, managed to become a bit of a fudge - a lot of people now support the institution as a least-worst-option.
I also don’t think people place their criticisms with the economic inequalities in our society at the doors of the palace (by and large), but at the doors of the government. That distinction between institutions is actually quite beneficial when you think about it.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Can you give some examples of his mother's brightness?
Did she lose the horsey paracosm or keep it into her adult years? I'm not against paracosms, so I'm not trying to be nasty, but...let's just say that long-lasting paracosms can be dangerous.
Um, you do realise horses exist? Not like unicorns.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
What a bitchy old queen Starkey himself is :-) He probably thought at least she'd take him seriously because most academics don't. At least not intellectually. They know he's done all right for himself, mostly since he left academia.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Can you give some examples of his mother's brightness?
Did she lose the horsey paracosm or keep it into her adult years? I'm not against paracosms, so I'm not trying to be nasty, but...let's just say that long-lasting paracosms can be dangerous.
I genuinely have no clue what you are talking about.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Can you give some examples of his mother's brightness?
Did she lose the horsey paracosm or keep it into her adult years? I'm not against paracosms, so I'm not trying to be nasty, but...let's just say that long-lasting paracosms can be dangerous.
The Commonwealth was essentially her pet global project. The management of that for 70 years, both her relationships with the people in it, the institutions around it , and the tricky imperialist historical backdrop before it, taken altogether shows quite a high degree of natural emotional and intellectual intelligence.
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
I did vote Labour previously and talking of ramping is surreal coming from Starmer's chief of ramping on here
The Lady’s not for Taxing? My Arse 🍑
Truss policies for weak public finances REEK and SCREAM future tax hikes and high energy bills for households and business for decades.
I’m not the one trying to mislead everyone with their postings - no Lizgasm or spin from me, I’m the one playing this situation straight.
Plagues on BOTH you two spinners 😝
Moon at least we're not pretending. You pretend you're a leftie but you're not, let's be honest.
I’m very confident in my own mind I am posting honest. There is a lot more to politics than left right. When I was banned you rightly pointed out have I never praised Johnson or his rubbish cabinet.
Right wing Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions, and the professionalism of the representatives of those institutions, conservatism does not. populism like Trump and Boris are populist opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, a crusading ideology pretending it is the voice of all the people, undemocratically deaf to anyone with a different view. They have hi jacked conservatism in UK, and are trashing it. Instead of listening to criticism from CoE like Rwanda policy for example they instinctively attack the CoE, that is not UK conservatism. Likewise their undermining of civil service and attack on all the counterbalances of power - this too is not UK Conservatism.
Meanwhile, strong in my Christian values - I am currently now in three and a half unpaid volunteering schemes - ideas like “beware apartheid of the pocket” from Lord David Steel, means I am very happy to be voting Lib Dem and supporting their policies. Apart from the Energy Bill Freeze Policy - I’m absolutely convinced now it’s the wrong road to go.
I would never question your honesty and I have long considered you to be a lib dem
However, equally I post as honestly as I can and it is important for serious debate posters honesty is not really on the line but a political view point which ranges from far right to far left
I expect neither of us are far from the centre in truth
Thank you 👍🏻
Horse hasn’t replied yet. He is still working out what is the actual point of Lib Dems 😆
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
I did vote Labour previously and talking of ramping is surreal coming from Starmer's chief of ramping on here
The Lady’s not for Taxing? My Arse 🍑
Truss policies for weak public finances REEK and SCREAM future tax hikes and high energy bills for households and business for decades.
I’m not the one trying to mislead everyone with their postings - no Lizgasm or spin from me, I’m the one playing this situation straight.
Plagues on BOTH you two spinners 😝
Moon at least we're not pretending. You pretend you're a leftie but you're not, let's be honest.
I’m very confident in my own mind I am posting honest. There is a lot more to politics than left right. When I was banned you rightly pointed out have I never praised Johnson or his rubbish cabinet.
Right wing Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions, and the professionalism of the representatives of those institutions, conservatism does not. populism like Trump and Boris are populist opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, a crusading ideology pretending it is the voice of all the people, undemocratically deaf to anyone with a different view. They have hi jacked conservatism in UK, and are trashing it. Instead of listening to criticism from CoE like Rwanda policy for example they instinctively attack the CoE, that is not UK conservatism. Likewise their undermining of civil service and attack on all the counterbalances of power - this too is not UK Conservatism.
Meanwhile, strong in my Christian values - I am currently now in three and a half unpaid volunteering schemes - ideas like “beware apartheid of the pocket” from Lord David Steel, means I am very happy to be voting Lib Dem and supporting their policies. Apart from the Energy Bill Freeze Policy - I’m absolutely convinced now it’s the wrong road to go.
I would never question your honesty and I have long considered you to be a lib dem
However, equally I post as honestly as I can and it is important for serious debate posters honesty is not really on the line but a political view point which ranges from far right to far left
I expect neither of us are far from the centre in truth
Thank you 👍🏻
Horse hasn’t replied yet. He is still working out what is the actual point of Lib Dems 😆
The Lib Dems are to give non-Tories someone to vote for in the Shires, everyone knows that.
When I posted the thoughts below earlier, I didn’t do it to wind anybody up or support right or left, I did it to support the conversation, so we can all get it right.
This is what I posted, does it come across as particularly right wing to you Horse? Does it brush your mane up the wrong way?
My earlier post:
1. I thought it was just plain misleading for some media, like the telegraph, to tell us what inflation will now top off at with the governments freeze reducing it - they can’t actually know. The way it works is, if energy bills stop going up, even if they remain astronomical the less growth in energy bills, the less they can help grow inflation. However it’s just speculation what inflation will top at in UK before you then do the 4-5% reduction. It’s easy to believe a scenario where a weak government can lose control over wage growth in the same coming period.
2. In exactly the same way Truss government did not take an overall cost of their energy policy into parliament last week, because they literally can’t know what it is - the actual cost depends what happens to energy markets - hence they are struggling to cost it up and share the figure with us, also present an exit plan with it.
3. I thought the institute of directors were spot on it their response last Thursday, “What we need now is an external reassurance that the scale of the intervention does not jeopardise the public finances. That’s why it’s crucially important that the Office for Budget Responsibility can swiftly produce its independent assessment of the impact on government debt and the wider macroeconomy.” In exactly the same way Truss government are trying to avoid detailed scrutiny, IoD are expecting OBR scrutiny of the plan to flag up the need for future tax rises in order to protect weak public finances. This is where I see the penny has not dropped with a lot of PBers still backing the governments needlessly expensive freeze plan - Truss may have gone into the commons last week saying the Lady’s not for Taxing, but her policies for weak public finances REEK and SCREAM future taxes (especially if spurning the available windfall tax, which Lady Thatcher would not have spurned).
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Can you give some examples of his mother's brightness?
Did she lose the horsey paracosm or keep it into her adult years? I'm not against paracosms, so I'm not trying to be nasty, but...let's just say that long-lasting paracosms can be dangerous.
Um, you do realise horses exist? Not like unicorns.
She remained passionate about them throughout.
That's not what I'm talking about. Check out the 30 toy horses and the rituals. Also there's no reason that real beings can't feature in paracosms. I said I wasn't being nasty. Just wondered whether she'd lost the paracosm in later life. I'm not saying she should have lost it. Nothing wrong with paracosms in themselves. But they can be dangerous. And having everyone around you calling you "the future queen" and then "the queen" would be enough to keep most of us a long way away from sanity.
When I posted the thoughts below earlier, I didn’t do it to wind anybody up or support right or left, I did it to support the conversation, so we can all get it right.
This is what I posted, does it come across as particularly right wing to you Horse? Does it brush your mane up the wrong way?
My earlier post:
1. I thought it was just plain misleading for some media, like the telegraph, to tell us what inflation will now top off at with the governments freeze reducing it - they can’t actually know. The way it works is, if energy bills stop going up, even if they remain astronomical the less growth in energy bills, the less they can help grow inflation. However it’s just speculation what inflation will top at in UK before you then do the 4-5% reduction. It’s easy to believe a scenario where a weak government can lose control over wage growth in the same coming period.
2. In exactly the same way Truss government did not take an overall cost of their energy policy into parliament last week, because they literally can’t know what it is - the actual cost depends what happens to energy markets - hence they are struggling to cost it up and share the figure with us, also present an exit plan with it.
3. I thought the institute of directors were spot on it their response last Thursday, “What we need now is an external reassurance that the scale of the intervention does not jeopardise the public finances. That’s why it’s crucially important that the Office for Budget Responsibility can swiftly produce its independent assessment of the impact on government debt and the wider macroeconomy.” In exactly the same way Truss government are trying to avoid detailed scrutiny, IoD are expecting OBR scrutiny of the plan to flag up the need for future tax rises in order to protect weak public finances. This is where I see the penny has not dropped with a lot of PBers still backing the governments needlessly expensive freeze plan - Truss may have gone into the commons last week saying the Lady’s not for Taxing, but her policies for weak public finances REEK and SCREAM future taxes (especially if spurning the available windfall tax, which Lady Thatcher would not have spurned).
To my mind, until corrected, those three point nails it. I see my post merely as a true explanation of all the bits of politics going on here, the crisis response I think proves my point it’s not typical left right politics - such as Institute of Directors don’t want a Tory government to put a plan through without proper scrutiny, not because IoD pushing a right wing position, but pushing the correct position for transparency hearing what the OBR have to say about the plan - and Maggie Thatcher would definitely be taking more of this windfall money, just the same as she used to, not because it’s a right wing thing to do, but because it’s the right thing to be redistributive from winners to losers at moments like this - it was thinking like that what won her big majorities. In other words I’m claiming what won Lady Thatcher landslides were her pragmatic moments, outflanking Labour by standing with the working classes. And as TSE explained this morning, Liz Truss has chosen to go in the opposite direction. I don’t see that as usual opposition bashing Truss or her supporters, I’m just adding a few facts and thoughts to the conversation.
I need to rest now. I haven’t been sleeping well for days. 🙋♀️
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
This is a good example of petty-minded authoritarianism.
No, if it is real it is an example of idiocy, since there's no way any official guidance suggested such a thing would be a way of showing respect, and certainly not for that length of time.
Doing a bit of Twitter digging, it does seem likely that it’s real. One tweet was certain the location was directly outside Norwich town hall - and suggested it might be because the immediate area could have an event planned or be set aside for flowers or something. I’m sure an enterprising journo will be on the case, cos on the face of it, it looks absurd and probably fake.
So far the Test Match has had innings of 36.2 overs, 36.2 overs, 56.2 overs, and 17.0 overs. It shouldn't take more than 6-10 overs to conclude things. Not a triumph of batting stamina.
When I posted the thoughts below earlier, I didn’t do it to wind anybody up or support right or left, I did it to support the conversation, so we can all get it right.
This is what I posted, does it come across as particularly right wing to you Horse? Does it brush your mane up the wrong way?
My earlier post:
1. I thought it was just plain misleading for some media, like the telegraph, to tell us what inflation will now top off at with the governments freeze reducing it - they can’t actually know. The way it works is, if energy bills stop going up, even if they remain astronomical the less growth in energy bills, the less they can help grow inflation. However it’s just speculation what inflation will top at in UK before you then do the 4-5% reduction. It’s easy to believe a scenario where a weak government can lose control over wage growth in the same coming period.
2. In exactly the same way Truss government did not take an overall cost of their energy policy into parliament last week, because they literally can’t know what it is - the actual cost depends what happens to energy markets - hence they are struggling to cost it up and share the figure with us, also present an exit plan with it.
3. I thought the institute of directors were spot on it their response last Thursday, “What we need now is an external reassurance that the scale of the intervention does not jeopardise the public finances. That’s why it’s crucially important that the Office for Budget Responsibility can swiftly produce its independent assessment of the impact on government debt and the wider macroeconomy.” In exactly the same way Truss government are trying to avoid detailed scrutiny, IoD are expecting OBR scrutiny of the plan to flag up the need for future tax rises in order to protect weak public finances. This is where I see the penny has not dropped with a lot of PBers still backing the governments needlessly expensive freeze plan - Truss may have gone into the commons last week saying the Lady’s not for Taxing, but her policies for weak public finances REEK and SCREAM future taxes (especially if spurning the available windfall tax, which Lady Thatcher would not have spurned).
To my mind, until corrected, those three point nails it. I see my post merely as a true explanation of all the bits of politics going on here, the crisis response I think proves my point it’s not typical left right politics - such as Institute of Directors don’t want a Tory government to put a plan through without proper scrutiny, not because IoD pushing a right wing position, but pushing the correct position for transparency hearing what the OBR have to say about the plan - and Maggie Thatcher would definitely be taking more of this windfall money, just the same as she used to, not because it’s a right wing thing to do, but because it’s the right thing to be redistributive from winners to losers at moments like this - it was thinking like that what won her big majorities. In other words I’m claiming what won Lady Thatcher landslides were her pragmatic moments, outflanking Labour by standing with the working classes. And as TSE explained this morning, Liz Truss has chosen to go in the opposite direction. I don’t see that as usual opposition bashing Truss or her supporters, I’m just adding a few facts and thoughts to the conversation.
I need to rest now. I haven’t been sleeping well for days. 🙋♀️
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
You might perhaps pause to be grateful that there are so few cats on PB, for some reason which escapes me.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
This is a good example of petty-minded authoritarianism.
No, if it is real it is an example of idiocy, since there's no way any official guidance suggested such a thing would be a way of showing respect, and certainly not for that length of time.
If it's real, which I have my doubts, then I wonder whether it's something to do with access for signing a book of condolence in a council building.
There's enough really crap cycle infrastructure around that I could imagine a cycle rack being put in a place where it might cause access problems for wheelchairs, etc.
I'm not defending it, but I'm just trying to find some way of understanding it. There must be a reason, even if it's wrong-headed, if it's a real sign.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
Some chat that Ukraine have a “secret” division that they’ve held back so far, that is on the way to either Mariupol or Melitopol. It’s like the warfare version of bazball.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
Well he is entitled. So you can hardly blame him for being entitled.
Quite surprised by that poll finding - I thought it was older & more conservative people who were keener on authoritarianism.
Older people were taught that there are different points of view and it's important to have a civilised debate between them. Young people are taught that there's only one correct opinion on every subject.
Therefore — authoritarianism.
I suspect it is five ",old" people in that have given you be"likes".
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Can you give some examples of his mother's brightness?
Did she lose the horsey paracosm or keep it into her adult years? I'm not against paracosms, so I'm not trying to be nasty, but...let's just say that long-lasting paracosms can be dangerous.
Um, you do realise horses exist? Not like unicorns.
She remained passionate about them throughout.
That's not what I'm talking about. Check out the 30 toy horses and the rituals. Also there's no reason that real beings can't feature in paracosms. I said I wasn't being nasty. Just wondered whether she'd lost the paracosm in later life. I'm not saying she should have lost it. Nothing wrong with paracosms in themselves. But they can be dangerous. And having everyone around you calling you "the future queen" and then "the queen" would be enough to keep most of us a long way away from sanity.
So what? No doubt I had 100 toy soldiers at the same age, and lined them up every night. No paracosm, honest.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
Well he is entitled. So you can hardly blame him for being entitled.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
Well he is entitled. So you can hardly blame him for being entitled.
Some chat that Ukraine have a “secret” division that they’ve held back so far, that is on the way to either Mariupol or Melitopol. It’s like the warfare version of bazball.
I think a lot of this talk is an attempt to spook the Russians so that they'll panic at the first sight of a minor Ukrainian attack.
The Ukrainians lost a couple of T-72 tanks today during a small, failed, attack on Pisky, in Donetsk. If the Russians there had believed they were facing the vanguard of another division then they might have fled. Alternatively, if the attack had been successful, and Ukraine had found another weak point in the line, then maybe the rest of the division was poised to follow them through.
Much more dramatic rumors doing the rounds on twitter, but I've learnt my lesson from yesterday's Donetsk Airport claims.
Stuart a question: so exit poll only 176-173 left v right. For the sake of argument let's say the Right ekes out a narrow victory, wouldn't Kristersson become the new PM? Or would it be Åkesson? Danish election 2015, LL Rasmussen became new PM even though Venstre was 3rd behind DPP.
Why? Smoke from forest fires in the Cascade Mountains, in particular big one near Mt Baker, just south of US border, and near Steven Pass further south.
Yesterday Seattle was #1, but today we are just #9; Portland OR is #3
Air quality in my hood in north Seattle has been improving since late last night, when it was rated as unhealthy for everyone; today it's in "unhealthy for sensitive groups" range, on cusp of "moderate".
This is thanks to major wind shift, which will keep on clearing our local air AND reducing temperatures, which hit 92F at Sea-Tac Airport on Saturday, which BTW (also FYI) broke record for most summer days with recorded highs above 90F; yesterday made a dozen such days this summer.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
It is a pretty dim piece though. Naively looked at any previous historical epoch looks simpler and more certain and ordered than today; zoom in and it turns out not to be. Also there have been 60 odd monarchs of England so there's 60 odd transitions to look at, why the focus on just the last? Thirdly when he says "For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream" he is surely comparing today with the 1980s not 1950s?
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
Stuart a question: so exit poll only 176-173 left v right. For the sake of argument let's say the Right ekes out a narrow victory, wouldn't Kristersson become the new PM? Or would it be Åkesson? Danish election 2015, LL Rasmussen became new PM even though Venstre was 3rd behind DPP.
NYT ($) - Ukrainian Officials Drew on U.S. Intelligence to Plan Counteroffensive Overcoming a reluctance to share their strategy, the Ukrainians were able to use U.S. resources to identify key Russian targets.
WASHINGTON — Senior Ukrainian officials stepped up intelligence sharing with their American counterparts over the summer as they began to plan the counteroffensive that allowed them to make dramatic gains in the northeast in recent days, a shift that allowed the United States to provide better and more relevant information about Russian weaknesses, according to American officials.
Throughout the war, the United States has provided Ukraine with information on command posts, ammunition depots and other key nodes in the Russian military lines. Such real-time intelligence has allowed the Ukrainians — who U.S. officials acknowledge have played the decisive role in planning and execution — to target Russian forces, kill senior generals and force ammunition supplies to be moved farther from the Russian front lines.
But earlier on, American intelligence officials said they often had a better understanding of Russia’s military plans than of Ukraine’s. Concerned that sharing their operational plans could highlight weaknesses and discourage continued American support, the Ukrainians were closely guarding their operational plans even as American intelligence was gathering precise details on what the Kremlin was ordering and Russian commanders were planning.
But as Ukraine laid its plans to strike back against the Russians, senior leaders in Kyiv decided that sharing more information with the United States would help secure more assistance, American officials said.
Senior U.S. officials declined to say how much details from the counteroffensive plan Ukraine had shared and how much advice the United States had offered. But one official said Americans had “constantly” discussed with Kyiv ways that Ukraine could blunt the Russian advance in the country’s east. . . .
David Patrikarakos @dpatrikarakos #Russia 🇷🇺 has just fired Lt. General Berdnikov, its commander of the western military district. He’s been in post for 15 days.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
John Harris much more nuanced than that. He tends to support social-led change rather than identity politics, as I would. I'm also not entirely sure that he's a republican.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
I could have sworn you were the poster who said this a while back:
The best thing we can do for our young people is to teach them critical thinking. To analyse the evidence, critique it, think for themselves, and keep an open mind to other perspectives if it changes.
Some chat that Ukraine have a “secret” division that they’ve held back so far, that is on the way to either Mariupol or Melitopol. It’s like the warfare version of bazball.
I think a lot of this talk is an attempt to spook the Russians so that they'll panic at the first sight of a minor Ukrainian attack.
The Ukrainians lost a couple of T-72 tanks today during a small, failed, attack on Pisky, in Donetsk. If the Russians there had believed they were facing the vanguard of another division then they might have fled. Alternatively, if the attack had been successful, and Ukraine had found another weak point in the line, then maybe the rest of the division was poised to follow them through.
Much more dramatic rumors doing the rounds on twitter, but I've learnt my lesson from yesterday's Donetsk Airport claims.
Do we know for sure what the state of play is with Donetsk Airport?
My surprise at the Macca story is simply that the Queen was into Twin Peaks.
Would have thought it was a bit racy and weird for her, frankly. Had her down as more of a Corrie / Last of the Summer Wine / Midsomer Murders type.
Twin Peaks was a huge TV phenomenon when it was first aired and the initial episodes were extremely gripping. And her own dominion of Canada featured a bit. So it's quite plausible that she tuned in.
David Patrikarakos @dpatrikarakos #Russia 🇷🇺 has just fired Lt. General Berdnikov, its commander of the western military district. He’s been in post for 15 days.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
Naturally monarchy is a bit daft. But it still works, more or less.
That's why I support it, but try to do so in a not weird way.
David Patrikarakos @dpatrikarakos #Russia 🇷🇺 has just fired Lt. General Berdnikov, its commander of the western military district. He’s been in post for 15 days.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
The defining feature of being a Guardianista is a secret embarrassment about being British (particularly about being English) combined with intellectual snobbery.
The reaction this engenders in others is repulsion which can be freely expressed and, of course, serves only to reinforce the prejudices these pompous self-hating windbags already hold.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
Computer art is banned?
tis.
Quite liked this, particularly the dook. Come ahead, ban hammer.
Putin vibe. They dressed better back then.
While pursuing my duds activities I discovered that there's a tailor that specialises in Georgian/Regency tailoring. Maybe a bit too Sir Percy Blakeney for you but perhaps the next PB gathering..?
NYT ($) - Ukrainian Officials Drew on U.S. Intelligence to Plan Counteroffensive Overcoming a reluctance to share their strategy, the Ukrainians were able to use U.S. resources to identify key Russian targets.
WASHINGTON — Senior Ukrainian officials stepped up intelligence sharing with their American counterparts over the summer as they began to plan the counteroffensive that allowed them to make dramatic gains in the northeast in recent days, a shift that allowed the United States to provide better and more relevant information about Russian weaknesses, according to American officials.
Throughout the war, the United States has provided Ukraine with information on command posts, ammunition depots and other key nodes in the Russian military lines. Such real-time intelligence has allowed the Ukrainians — who U.S. officials acknowledge have played the decisive role in planning and execution — to target Russian forces, kill senior generals and force ammunition supplies to be moved farther from the Russian front lines.
But earlier on, American intelligence officials said they often had a better understanding of Russia’s military plans than of Ukraine’s. Concerned that sharing their operational plans could highlight weaknesses and discourage continued American support, the Ukrainians were closely guarding their operational plans even as American intelligence was gathering precise details on what the Kremlin was ordering and Russian commanders were planning.
But as Ukraine laid its plans to strike back against the Russians, senior leaders in Kyiv decided that sharing more information with the United States would help secure more assistance, American officials said.
Senior U.S. officials declined to say how much details from the counteroffensive plan Ukraine had shared and how much advice the United States had offered. But one official said Americans had “constantly” discussed with Kyiv ways that Ukraine could blunt the Russian advance in the country’s east. . . .
Could have been concern the Americans might not be fully invested in a counter offensive vs defensive assistance? But having gotten beyond that I'd assume the Ukrainian top brass was constantly plugged in to american intel.
Some chat that Ukraine have a “secret” division that they’ve held back so far, that is on the way to either Mariupol or Melitopol. It’s like the warfare version of bazball.
I think a lot of this talk is an attempt to spook the Russians so that they'll panic at the first sight of a minor Ukrainian attack.
The Ukrainians lost a couple of T-72 tanks today during a small, failed, attack on Pisky, in Donetsk. If the Russians there had believed they were facing the vanguard of another division then they might have fled. Alternatively, if the attack had been successful, and Ukraine had found another weak point in the line, then maybe the rest of the division was poised to follow them through.
Much more dramatic rumors doing the rounds on twitter, but I've learnt my lesson from yesterday's Donetsk Airport claims.
Do we know for sure what the state of play is with Donetsk Airport?
There was a video last night from a Russian unit at the airport that said, "very quiet here, no sign of any Ukrainians." Since then, nothing more has been said about Donetsk Airport.
I don't blame the Ukrainians. Attempting to spread panic in the enemy is a valid tactic, but I'd clearly become too credulous because there'd been a run of absurd claims that had later been confirmed. Imagine Kupyansk and Izyum being liberated just like that? Ridiculous.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
Computer art is banned?
tis.
Quite liked this, particularly the dook. Come ahead, ban hammer.
Putin vibe. They dressed better back then.
I'm getting more of an Alan Cumming vibe for Wellington.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
Computer art is banned?
tis.
Quite liked this, particularly the dook. Come ahead, ban hammer.
Putin vibe. They dressed better back then.
While pursuing my duds activities I discovered that there's a tailor that specialises in Georgian/Regency tailoring. Maybe a bit too Sir Percy Blakeney for you but perhaps the next PB gathering..?
Comments
Several of the bomber were identified for enhanced pre-boarding checks, but this only affected their checked baggage and, in a couple of cases, an additional x-Ray scan.
There is a stack of what-ifs for 9/11; for example, what if the original air controller had heard the “we have planes” when it was first transmitted, rather than having to wait twenty minutes for the tapes to be pulled and examined, because he had been distracted and missed it.
But the bottom line is that no-one involved could imagine, in advance, what was going to happen - there was no precedent for it - and therefore the many things that we see could have been done, with hindsight, were unimaginable in advance. Even when the military got shoot-down authority, they didn’t tell the fighter pilots, for fear a passenger plane would get shot down by accident.
An interesting rarely mentioned aspect is the suggestion that there was a fifth group of hijackers ready to go on one of the planes that never took off, because all flights were grounded.
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual influence on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's done it at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; all these things not so much now.
Did she lose the horsey paracosm or keep it into her adult years? I'm not against paracosms, so I'm not trying to be nasty, but...let's just say that long-lasting paracosms can be dangerous.
He is above all an entitled arse.
You might be able to make it work for earlier decades, but on pretty much every metric, families are in better shape in 2022 than in 1988
Here's some data on teenage pregnancy rates in the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259518/birth-rate-among-us-teenagers/
Down 75% since 1991.
I also don’t think people place their criticisms with the economic inequalities in our society at the doors of the palace (by and large), but at the doors of the government. That distinction between institutions is actually quite beneficial when you think about it.
She remained passionate about them throughout.
Horse hasn’t replied yet. He is still working out what is the actual point of Lib Dems 😆
This is what I posted, does it come across as particularly right wing to you Horse? Does it brush your mane up the wrong way?
My earlier post:
1. I thought it was just plain misleading for some media, like the telegraph, to tell us what inflation will now top off at with the governments freeze reducing it - they can’t actually know. The way it works is, if energy bills stop going up, even if they remain astronomical the less growth in energy bills, the less they can help grow inflation. However it’s just speculation what inflation will top at in UK before you then do the 4-5% reduction. It’s easy to believe a scenario where a weak government can lose control over wage growth in the same coming period.
2. In exactly the same way Truss government did not take an overall cost of their energy policy into parliament last week, because they literally can’t know what it is - the actual cost depends what happens to energy markets - hence they are struggling to cost it up and share the figure with us, also present an exit plan with it.
3. I thought the institute of directors were spot on it their response last Thursday, “What we need now is an external reassurance that the scale of the intervention does not jeopardise the public finances. That’s why it’s crucially important that the Office for Budget Responsibility can swiftly produce its independent assessment of the impact on government debt and the wider macroeconomy.”
In exactly the same way Truss government are trying to avoid detailed scrutiny, IoD are expecting OBR scrutiny of the plan to flag up the need for future tax rises in order to protect weak public finances. This is where I see the penny has not dropped with a lot of PBers still backing the governments needlessly expensive freeze plan - Truss may have gone into the commons last week saying the Lady’s not for Taxing, but her policies for weak public finances REEK and SCREAM future taxes (especially if spurning the available windfall tax, which Lady Thatcher would not have spurned).
I need to rest now. I haven’t been sleeping well for days. 🙋♀️
Edit: https://www.norwich.gov.uk/TheQueen
Backs up the theory it may be genuine.
There's enough really crap cycle infrastructure around that I could imagine a cycle rack being put in a place where it might cause access problems for wheelchairs, etc.
I'm not defending it, but I'm just trying to find some way of understanding it. There must be a reason, even if it's wrong-headed, if it's a real sign.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
https://www.svtplay.se/video/36475939/val-2022-valvakan/val-2022-valvakan-11-sep-19-45?id=8WYpvz3
Results:
https://resultat.val.se/val2022/prel/RD/rike
2SD +3
3 M-1
4 C
He takes it for granted.
Right bloc 173 MPs
Blue bloc 173
The Ukrainians lost a couple of T-72 tanks today during a small, failed, attack on Pisky, in Donetsk. If the Russians there had believed they were facing the vanguard of another division then they might have fled. Alternatively, if the attack had been successful, and Ukraine had found another weak point in the line, then maybe the rest of the division was poised to follow them through.
Much more dramatic rumors doing the rounds on twitter, but I've learnt my lesson from yesterday's Donetsk Airport claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Danish_general_election
https://www.iqair.com/us/air-quality-map?lat=47.693953&lng=-122.285939&zoomLevel=10
Why? Smoke from forest fires in the Cascade Mountains, in particular big one near Mt Baker, just south of US border, and near Steven Pass further south.
Yesterday Seattle was #1, but today we are just #9; Portland OR is #3
Air quality in my hood in north Seattle has been improving since late last night, when it was rated as unhealthy for everyone; today it's in "unhealthy for sensitive groups" range, on cusp of "moderate".
This is thanks to major wind shift, which will keep on clearing our local air AND reducing temperatures, which hit 92F at Sea-Tac Airport on Saturday, which BTW (also FYI) broke record for most summer days with recorded highs above 90F; yesterday made a dozen such days this summer.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
PM Åkesson is a total impossibility
Overcoming a reluctance to share their strategy, the Ukrainians were able to use U.S. resources to identify key Russian targets.
WASHINGTON — Senior Ukrainian officials stepped up intelligence sharing with their American counterparts over the summer as they began to plan the counteroffensive that allowed them to make dramatic gains in the northeast in recent days, a shift that allowed the United States to provide better and more relevant information about Russian weaknesses, according to American officials.
Throughout the war, the United States has provided Ukraine with information on command posts, ammunition depots and other key nodes in the Russian military lines. Such real-time intelligence has allowed the Ukrainians — who U.S. officials acknowledge have played the decisive role in planning and execution — to target Russian forces, kill senior generals and force ammunition supplies to be moved farther from the Russian front lines.
But earlier on, American intelligence officials said they often had a better understanding of Russia’s military plans than of Ukraine’s. Concerned that sharing their operational plans could highlight weaknesses and discourage continued American support, the Ukrainians were closely guarding their operational plans even as American intelligence was gathering precise details on what the Kremlin was ordering and Russian commanders were planning.
But as Ukraine laid its plans to strike back against the Russians, senior leaders in Kyiv decided that sharing more information with the United States would help secure more assistance, American officials said.
Senior U.S. officials declined to say how much details from the counteroffensive plan Ukraine had shared and how much advice the United States had offered. But one official said Americans had “constantly” discussed with Kyiv ways that Ukraine could blunt the Russian advance in the country’s east. . . .
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/us/politics/ukraine-military-intelligence.html
David Patrikarakos
@dpatrikarakos
#Russia 🇷🇺 has just fired Lt. General Berdnikov, its commander of the western military district. He’s been in post for 15 days.
https://mobile.twitter.com/dpatrikarakos/status/1569019361003974656
I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
The best thing we can do for our young people is to teach them critical thinking. To analyse the evidence, critique it, think for themselves, and keep an open mind to other perspectives if it changes.
Open mind, eh?
https://www.thelocal.se/20220911/swedish-election-live-blog/
There was are two exit polls out. Both saying the same thing in terms of Left v Right.
That's why I support it, but try to do so in a not weird way.
The reaction this engenders in others is repulsion which can be freely expressed and, of course, serves only to reinforce the prejudices these pompous self-hating windbags already hold.
https://www.pinsenttailoring.co.uk/
I don't blame the Ukrainians. Attempting to spread panic in the enemy is a valid tactic, but I'd clearly become too credulous because there'd been a run of absurd claims that had later been confirmed. Imagine Kupyansk and Izyum being liberated just like that? Ridiculous.
200,000 foreign votes will not be added to count until Wednesday, so Swedes in eg London might decide the outcome!! 😉
Twin Peaks was a BIG deal in the 1990s. Considered (esp. by devotees) to be revolutionary, ground-breaking television.
By then PMcC had been old hat for decades, notwithstanding his continuing career and successes.