A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
How ungrateful, I’m thinking of fawning, lickspittle royal fanbois like you! I’m sure you’ve got it all recorded anyway, but now you’ll have to clear your hard drive faster than a 70s light entertainer expecting a visit from the cops.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What is "archive footage"? I mean, can I declare this an archive post and limit/ charge for reproduction of it?
Biden adviser: US will ‘respond decisively’ if Russia uses nuclear weapons
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3660107-biden-adviser-us-will-respond-decisively-if-russia-uses-nuclear-weapons/ White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday said the United States will “respond decisively” if Russian President Vladimir Putin moves to use nuclear weapons. “We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels, to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively. And we have been clear and specific about what that will entail,” Sullivan told CBS…
To me that translates as, Biden has told Putin personally that he will nuke the fuck out of Moscow the instant Russia nukes anyone.
Biden's age and dodderiness is a plus here, because Putin will think that if he were Biden he would be thinking Had a good innings, go out leaving a reputation as a Strong Man, what's the downside?
ok lets assume russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in ukraine....do we nuke moscow in that eventuality leading to an inevitable devastating nuclear strike on the west or do we instead launch a devastating conventional attack on russias forces...the 2nd option seems wiser to me
Much more likely I think. And more useful in helping Ukraine win the war.
I suspect that NATO have a pretty good idea where Russia´s nuclear weapons are. A combination of a conventional intervention on the ground and the destruction of-say- one or more of the Russian SSBN fleet (which is the stealthiest attack system that Putin has available), might be on the response menu.
The original mission of the B-2 bomber was to hunt down land based mobile ICBMs inside the Soviet Union. Hence the very interesting ground mapping radar it carries.
Putin sees the threat to himself coming from Moscow and St Petersburg. The muslim majority caucuses regions could easily revolt but I don't know how much of a problem that would be for him? Obviously these are the people he wants to see dying in disproportionate numbers for him in Ukraine.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What is "archive footage"? I mean, can I declare this an archive post and limit/ charge for reproduction of it?
Archive posts on here belong to OGH and the poster who made them
How not to keep the media on your side: ban them from using all but one hour of QEII 10-days-of-mourning footage.
Harry and Meghan? Nah, hold my Royal pint ...
Take back control from our unelected rulers!
I am so going to disrupt the coronation of King Charles.
I'm not sure the monarchy is responsible for copyright law.
Not about copyright, which if there is any here is held by the filmers not the filmed. And performer's rights don't arise either unless you concede the whole thing was one big act.
Putin sees the threat to himself coming from Moscow and St Petersburg. The muslim majority caucuses regions could easily revolt but I don't know how much of a problem that would be for him? Obviously these are the people he wants to see dying in disproportionate numbers for him in Ukraine.
muslim majority caucuses regions could be a real issue in the mid terms.
With respect to seeing the USA, last time I got a motel room, for out-of-town jaunt to escape (briefly) this summer's Heat Wave in Seattle, cost for one night in adequate (for me anyway) room in a tired old motel in small town check-by-jowl with naval air station = $95 plus tax, so total about $105
On other hand, my travel cost, entirely via public transit (three separate bus systems plus WA State ferry) was under $15 round trip, though distance was only 90 miles one way.
As for RVs in US, just plucked this from the web, no idea how reliable, but at least a starting point?
One thing is, I thought it was impossible to vote Boris 2024, I now find it impossible to vote Liz 2024, but how is it possible to vote any tory 2024 under the current election rules? Because I genuinely thought Boris was −273.15 °C, and now Truss has effortlessly surpassed him in less than a week (net of obsequies). How can I ever afford to vote tory knowing that there's no limits on what the membership can impose on the country?
Vicious circle, because you can't stand for election for leadership by the elderly sheep on a withdrawing the vote from the elderly sheep ticket. For all I know the sheep get a vote on the rule change anyway - does anyone know if that is right? If so I can see no way out except a new party.
Howard tried to change the rules in 2005 and he failed. But I'm not sure whether it was ever put the membership or whether it was MPs that vetoed it.
i dont think democracy has ever been tested like this with such a large part of the electorate oaps with no skin in the game. They dont work so dont care much about tax and national insurance...nor do they see the change in culture in the modern workplace. They dont have a mortgage so dont care that much about interest rates. Many dont even go out that much so arent hit as much by the rising cost of living. There has to be a case to restrict voting to the working age population.
A lot of them have savings and would benefit from higher interest rates
How not to keep the media on your side: ban them from using all but one hour of QEII 10-days-of-mourning footage.
Harry and Meghan? Nah, hold my Royal pint ...
Take back control from our unelected rulers!
I am so going to disrupt the coronation of King Charles.
I'm not sure the monarchy is responsible for copyright law.
Not about copyright, which if there is any here is held by the filmers not the filmed. And performer's rights don't arise either unless you concede the whole thing was one big act.
The broadcasters might have had to assign their copyright to the Royal Family in order to get access
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
One thing is, I thought it was impossible to vote Boris 2024, I now find it impossible to vote Liz 2024, but how is it possible to vote any tory 2024 under the current election rules? Because I genuinely thought Boris was −273.15 °C, and now Truss has effortlessly surpassed him in less than a week (net of obsequies). How can I ever afford to vote tory knowing that there's no limits on what the membership can impose on the country?
Vicious circle, because you can't stand for election for leadership by the elderly sheep on a withdrawing the vote from the elderly sheep ticket. For all I know the sheep get a vote on the rule change anyway - does anyone know if that is right? If so I can see no way out except a new party.
Howard tried to change the rules in 2005 and he failed. But I'm not sure whether it was ever put the membership or whether it was MPs that vetoed it.
i dont think democracy has ever been tested like this with such a large part of the electorate oaps with no skin in the game. They dont work so dont care much about tax and national insurance...nor do they see the change in culture in the modern workplace. They dont have a mortgage so dont care that much about interest rates. Many dont even go out that much so arent hit as much by the rising cost of living. There has to be a case to restrict voting to the working age population.
A lot of them have savings and would benefit from higher interest rates
You would hope they might have some sympathy for their children and grand-children, but no.
Surveys suggest they think everyone under the age of 60 are self-indulgent skivers.
How not to keep the media on your side: ban them from using all but one hour of QEII 10-days-of-mourning footage.
Harry and Meghan? Nah, hold my Royal pint ...
Take back control from our unelected rulers!
I am so going to disrupt the coronation of King Charles.
I'm not sure the monarchy is responsible for copyright law.
Not about copyright, which if there is any here is held by the filmers not the filmed. And performer's rights don't arise either unless you concede the whole thing was one big act.
The broadcasters might have had to assign their copyright to the Royal Family in order to get access
But in that case this should all come as no surprise.
They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
The Crown obviously organised the funeral and lying in state, the BBC would have to have a contract from the Crown to broadcast them live which presumably also included use of archive footage
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I like Forgan's (an informal themed sort of restaurant, they have two branches, another in Broughty Ferry), and a bar/restaurant called The Doll's House in Church Square. Neither of these is a 'posh' restaurant, so don't blame me if there's no 6 course tasting option.
Putin sees the threat to himself coming from Moscow and St Petersburg. The muslim majority caucuses regions could easily revolt but I don't know how much of a problem that would be for him? Obviously these are the people he wants to see dying in disproportionate numbers for him in Ukraine.
It’s notable in smaller villages in the middle if nowhere the conscription rate can be anything up to 100% of conscriptable men. The comparable rates for St Petersburg and Moscow are reportedly something around 1% and 0.1%.
Putin sees the threat to himself coming from Moscow and St Petersburg. The muslim majority caucuses regions could easily revolt but I don't know how much of a problem that would be for him? Obviously these are the people he wants to see dying in disproportionate numbers for him in Ukraine.
muslim majority caucuses regions could be a real issue in the mid terms.
Caucasus I mean. Given the people probably don't yet know yet just how bad it's going and the economic pain is yet to bite this could get more and more heated.
If Rishi has any ambition to become PM then he needs to rebel against this budget and stand up for middle and lower income people. He only needs 37 rebels I think, given the nature and scale of the the cuts for rich people and sterling tanking I think he could find them.
He just lost a leadership election on these issues. It would create a massive crisis for the Conservative party if he tried to get MPs to overrule the result.
Didn't he win the leadership contest with Conservative MPs on these issues?
He wasn't able to get a majority of them to endorse him or vote for him, but yes, that's why it would be the equivalent of a Conservative party constitutional crisis for him to attempt to get MPs to go against the verdict of party members.
A backbench MP rebelling isn’t even vaguely “the equivalent of a party constitutional crisis”. It’s part of how our parliamentary system works.
You seem to be confusing the Tory party with the Politburo.
For me the fatal flaw is she has no popular democratic mandate for this. And she still wouldn't even with a thumping victory in both sections of the Tory leadership contest. That she didn't even manage that just adds shit to the poo.
In a way, it's not news. The bottom line of accountability had always been "if you don't like it, vote for someone else next time." After all, MPs don't get recalled when they defect.
So Truss doing whatever crazy stuff she feels like is the system working as normal. If anything is broken, it's the apparent carelessness for the future that the government are showing.
The only check before January 2025 is if sufficient Conservative MPs get sufficiently terrified for their careers that they dump her or distance themselves from the party.
How not to keep the media on your side: ban them from using all but one hour of QEII 10-days-of-mourning footage.
Harry and Meghan? Nah, hold my Royal pint ...
Take back control from our unelected rulers!
I am so going to disrupt the coronation of King Charles.
Coronations are a fruitful source of law, all the leading frustration of contract cases is people who rented flats with balconies to see Ed VII being crowned, only he had a touch of syphilis and had to postpone.
So it'll be good to have a decision on whether baring one's buttocks at the Queen Consort is a crime at common law.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Putin sees the threat to himself coming from Moscow and St Petersburg. The muslim majority caucuses regions could easily revolt but I don't know how much of a problem that would be for him? Obviously these are the people he wants to see dying in disproportionate numbers for him in Ukraine.
muslim majority caucuses regions could be a real issue in the mid terms.
Caucasus I mean. Given the people probably don't yet know yet just how bad it's going and the economic pain is yet to bite this could get more and more heated.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I'd try and stay at the Old Course Hotel. Sip whisky on the balcony overlooking the 18th as dusk falls. But I'm a golf fan so that's maybe a bit bespoke to me.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I like Forgan's (an informal themed sort of restaurant, they have two branches, another in Broughty Ferry), and a bar/restaurant called The Doll's House in Church Square. Neither of these is a 'posh' restaurant, so don't blame me if there's no 6 course tasting option.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I'd try and stay at the Old Course Hotel. Sip whisky on the balcony overlooking the 18th as dusk falls. But I'm a golf fan so that's maybe a bit bespoke to me.
Yes that looks tempting, and presumably relatively value when there's no golf on (going to see Z jr graduate).
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Given most of your posts on the monarchy here have been whinging ones like this I think the idea you are not a republican already is debateable.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I like Forgan's (an informal themed sort of restaurant, they have two branches, another in Broughty Ferry), and a bar/restaurant called The Doll's House in Church Square. Neither of these is a 'posh' restaurant, so don't blame me if there's no 6 course tasting option.
TY! will try.
No worries. It seems the Forgan's people also do serviced apartments, which look nice; a swish apartment is how I'd do St Andrews unless you are indeed going the full monty and doing The Old Course as Kinabula suggests.
The Crown obviously organised the funeral and lying in state, the BBC would have to have a contract from the Crown to broadcast them live which presumably also included use of archive footage
Probably fair to say the Crown was one of a number of agencies involved in the planning of the funeral but, that aside, and I ask in all seriousness:
The "interior" aspects of the funeral as well as the lying-in-state at Westminster Hall - yes, I'm sure you're right.
As for the public exterior processions, I think that's a harder one to argue. In contrast to for example George Vi's funeral, many of those lining the procession filmed the event on their phones. Are they breacking any kind of copyright sharing those pictures with others? I'd imagine not.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I'd try and stay at the Old Course Hotel. Sip whisky on the balcony overlooking the 18th as dusk falls. But I'm a golf fan so that's maybe a bit bespoke to me.
Yes that looks tempting, and presumably relatively value when there's no golf on (going to see Z jr graduate).
Ah nice. There is a tourny though, the Dunhill, not the Open but still quite a popular event. Starts Thursday.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Given most of your posts on the monarchy here have been whinging ones like this I think the idea you are not a republican already is debateable.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
“Count themselves lucky”… That’s the kind of cringing attitude towards what is supposed to be a constitutional monarchy, subject to Parliament, that I was criticising.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I like Forgan's (an informal themed sort of restaurant, they have two branches, another in Broughty Ferry), and a bar/restaurant called The Doll's House in Church Square. Neither of these is a 'posh' restaurant, so don't blame me if there's no 6 course tasting option.
TY! will try.
No worries. It seems the Forgan's people also do serviced apartments, which look nice; a swish apartment is how I'd do St Andrews unless you are indeed going the full monty and doing The Old Course as Kinabula suggests.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
The Crown obviously organised the funeral and lying in state, the BBC would have to have a contract from the Crown to broadcast them live which presumably also included use of archive footage
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I'd try and stay at the Old Course Hotel. Sip whisky on the balcony overlooking the 18th as dusk falls. But I'm a golf fan so that's maybe a bit bespoke to me.
Yes that looks tempting, and presumably relatively value when there's no golf on (going to see Z jr graduate).
Ah nice. There is a tourny though, the Dunhill, not the Open but still quite a popular event. Starts Thursday.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Given most of your posts on the monarchy here have been whinging ones like this I think the idea you are not a republican already is debateable.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
“Count themselves lucky”… That’s the kind of cringing attitude towards what is supposed to be a constitutional monarchy, subject to Parliament, that I was criticising.
The public watched it live, the monarchy has no obligation to give the broadcasters unrestricted archive
If Rishi has any ambition to become PM then he needs to rebel against this budget and stand up for middle and lower income people. He only needs 37 rebels I think, given the nature and scale of the the cuts for rich people and sterling tanking I think he could find them.
He just lost a leadership election on these issues. It would create a massive crisis for the Conservative party if he tried to get MPs to overrule the result.
Didn't he win the leadership contest with Conservative MPs on these issues?
He wasn't able to get a majority of them to endorse him or vote for him, but yes, that's why it would be the equivalent of a Conservative party constitutional crisis for him to attempt to get MPs to go against the verdict of party members.
A backbench MP rebelling isn’t even vaguely “the equivalent of a party constitutional crisis”. It’s part of how our parliamentary system works.
You seem to be confusing the Tory party with the Politburo.
For me the fatal flaw is she has no popular democratic mandate for this. And she still wouldn't even with a thumping victory in both sections of the Tory leadership contest. That she didn't even manage that just adds shit to the poo.
In a way, it's not news. The bottom line of accountability had always been "if you don't like it, vote for someone else next time." After all, MPs don't get recalled when they defect.
So Truss doing whatever crazy stuff she feels like is the system working as normal. If anything is broken, it's the apparent carelessness for the future that the government are showing.
The only check before January 2025 is if sufficient Conservative MPs get sufficiently terrified for their careers that they dump her or distance themselves from the party.
Yes you're right. These are the Rules. But it's such a radical departure that I think the Rules are being broken in spirit.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
The Crown obviously organised the funeral and lying in state, the BBC would have to have a contract from the Crown to broadcast them live which presumably also included use of archive footage
Broadcasters should boycott the coronation.
Fine, royalists can go to London and watch and republicans can't whinge it got too much coverage
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
The Crown obviously organised the funeral and lying in state, the BBC would have to have a contract from the Crown to broadcast them live which presumably also included use of archive footage
Broadcasters should boycott the coronation.
I very much doubt that any of these particular issues are covered by a written contract. But if they are, then broadcasters should refuse to sign any such nonsense next time around.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Given most of your posts on the monarchy here have been whinging ones like this I think the idea you are not a republican already is debateable.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
“Count themselves lucky”… That’s the kind of cringing attitude towards what is supposed to be a constitutional monarchy, subject to Parliament, that I was criticising.
The public watched it live, the monarchy has no obligation to give the broadcasters unrestricted archive
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Hmmmm. I was thinking that the whole queue jumping business was bad for the Monarchy because it made them look like sycophants to the media who had to been given 'privileges.' Don't they realise they anyone could simply have recorded it all on the TV?
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What is "archive footage"? I mean, can I declare this an archive post and limit/ charge for reproduction of it?
Archive posts on here belong to OGH and the poster who made them
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Given most of your posts on the monarchy here have been whinging ones like this I think the idea you are not a republican already is debateable.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
“Count themselves lucky”… That’s the kind of cringing attitude towards what is supposed to be a constitutional monarchy, subject to Parliament, that I was criticising.
The public watched it live, the monarchy has no obligation to give the broadcasters unrestricted archive
It’s not theirs to give.
Yes it is based on the contract broadcasters were given to cover it
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Given most of your posts on the monarchy here have been whinging ones like this I think the idea you are not a republican already is debateable.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
“Count themselves lucky”… That’s the kind of cringing attitude towards what is supposed to be a constitutional monarchy, subject to Parliament, that I was criticising.
The public watched it live, the monarchy has no obligation to give the broadcasters unrestricted archive
I'm no constitutional expert or lawyer. Can you explain why the footage would belong to the crown?
The concern is that the royal veto will be used to scrub mildly embarrassing moments from the historic record. At one point the king was seen to be irritated by the presence of a pen on the table at the accession council. The palace is also believed to have raised concerns about a shot from Westminster Hall that featured Mike Tindall, the husband of the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Phillips, checking his watch while observing the Queen lying in state.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I'd try and stay at the Old Course Hotel. Sip whisky on the balcony overlooking the 18th as dusk falls. But I'm a golf fan so that's maybe a bit bespoke to me.
Yes that looks tempting, and presumably relatively value when there's no golf on (going to see Z jr graduate).
Ah nice. There is a tourny though, the Dunhill, not the Open but still quite a popular event. Starts Thursday.
This is end Oct...
Coast is clear then!
But caveat to my rec - it's something I've always wanted to do rather than have done.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What is "archive footage"? I mean, can I declare this an archive post and limit/ charge for reproduction of it?
Archive posts on here belong to OGH and the poster who made them
I doubt it.
If someone tried to republish them for profit that would be the case and legal action could be taken
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
The Crown obviously organised the funeral and lying in state, the BBC would have to have a contract from the Crown to broadcast them live which presumably also included use of archive footage
Broadcasters should boycott the coronation.
Fine, royalists can go to London and watch and republicans can't whinge it got too much coverage
If Rishi has any ambition to become PM then he needs to rebel against this budget and stand up for middle and lower income people. He only needs 37 rebels I think, given the nature and scale of the the cuts for rich people and sterling tanking I think he could find them.
He just lost a leadership election on these issues. It would create a massive crisis for the Conservative party if he tried to get MPs to overrule the result.
Didn't he win the leadership contest with Conservative MPs on these issues?
He wasn't able to get a majority of them to endorse him or vote for him, but yes, that's why it would be the equivalent of a Conservative party constitutional crisis for him to attempt to get MPs to go against the verdict of party members.
A backbench MP rebelling isn’t even vaguely “the equivalent of a party constitutional crisis”. It’s part of how our parliamentary system works.
You seem to be confusing the Tory party with the Politburo.
For me the fatal flaw is she has no popular democratic mandate for this. And she still wouldn't even with a thumping victory in both sections of the Tory leadership contest. That she didn't even manage that just adds shit to the poo.
In a way, it's not news. The bottom line of accountability had always been "if you don't like it, vote for someone else next time." After all, MPs don't get recalled when they defect.
So Truss doing whatever crazy stuff she feels like is the system working as normal. If anything is broken, it's the apparent carelessness for the future that the government are showing.
The only check before January 2025 is if sufficient Conservative MPs get sufficiently terrified for their careers that they dump her or distance themselves from the party.
Yes you're right. These are the Rules. But it's such a radical departure that I think the Rules are being broken in spirit.
It's the common thread linking BoJo and Truss- "go on then, vote for someone else when we give you the chance." It's the manifestation that's different - one was bad behaviour, the other is bad policies. Which is worse? It's not easy to compare, but Truss can do a lit of damage if she wants to.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I like Forgan's (an informal themed sort of restaurant, they have two branches, another in Broughty Ferry), and a bar/restaurant called The Doll's House in Church Square. Neither of these is a 'posh' restaurant, so don't blame me if there's no 6 course tasting option.
TY! will try.
The Seafood Restaurante is very good but quite a bit pricier. It is overlooking the beach and I think it is better to go for lunch when you get the benefit of the views than dinner but its good for both. They stick an "e" on the end of resaurant but that is probably the most pretentious thing about it.
A pointless and damaging battle for the monarchy to engage in. Footage will out, they may as well let all of it be free for anyone to use.
The media had full live coverage of the lying in state, the memorial services, the funeral and for the first time, the accession council.
However the archive records are copyright of the Crown and it is up to the Crown how it wishes to allow the archive footage to be used
Glad we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the out of touch, privilege addicted throne warmers are at the service of the country and its people rather than the reverse.
Over the past 2 weeks we have had nothing but whinging from republicans like you that there has been far too much live coverage of the period of mourning for the Queen, the lying in state and funeral.
So don't you dare turn round now and have the cheek and hypocrisy to say there will not be enough archive footage of it available which you would never watch anyway!!
What evidence do you have for the strange assertion that the Crown owns the copyright on (eg) the BBC’s coverage of the funeral ?
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Well the obvious evidence for the assertion is the story itself. If they had no such rights then the story would have no basis, and the broadcasters wouldn't allegedly be muttering about it.
Copyright isn’t mentioned in the piece, It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
Given most of your posts on the monarchy here have been whinging ones like this I think the idea you are not a republican already is debateable.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
“Count themselves lucky”… That’s the kind of cringing attitude towards what is supposed to be a constitutional monarchy, subject to Parliament, that I was criticising.
The public watched it live, the monarchy has no obligation to give the broadcasters unrestricted archive
I'm no constitutional expert or lawyer. Can you explain why the footage would belong to the crown?
Why not? Everything else in the UK belongs to them.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
I’ll be watching on YouTube tomorrow. my dad is going to the ground with friends.
Soundly beating minor county west for a second time should quieten their noisy supporters on here. 😌
Edit. To actually answer your question, Strauss plan wouldn’t happen till 2024, so how do they choose the super 6 from next years two divisions? Any div 2 promotion is about 5 relegated?
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
"Minister: Serbia won’t recognize Russian annexation ‘referendums’ in occupied Ukrainian areas.
Serbian Foreign Minister Nikola Selakovic said that Serbia, a country considered a close ally of Russia, would comply with international law and the UN Charter."
The concern is that the royal veto will be used to scrub mildly embarrassing moments from the historic record. At one point the king was seen to be irritated by the presence of a pen on the table at the accession council. The palace is also believed to have raised concerns about a shot from Westminster Hall that featured Mike Tindall, the husband of the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Phillips, checking his watch while observing the Queen lying in state.
Sure, but the most embarrassing thing by a country mile is the CotE chortling away on, ahem, a sugar rush, so this doesn't really cut it as an attack on the unelected.
Speaking of Scotch issues, any hotel/restaurant recommendations for St Andrews?
I like Forgan's (an informal themed sort of restaurant, they have two branches, another in Broughty Ferry), and a bar/restaurant called The Doll's House in Church Square. Neither of these is a 'posh' restaurant, so don't blame me if there's no 6 course tasting option.
TY! will try.
The Seafood Restaurante is very good but quite a bit pricier. It is overlooking the beach and I think it is better to go for lunch when you get the benefit of the views than dinner but its good for both. They stick an "e" on the end of resaurant but that is probably the most pretentious thing about it.
Back to some other elections and while we await news from Italy, we've got the results from the state election in Tirol, which seems to be one of the more prosperous parts of Austria.
The OVP governed in coalition with the Greens (as at national level) and they held 21 out of the 36 seats in the Landtag. That majority has gone with the OVP losing 3 seats to drop to 14 and the Greens losing a seat and the combined vote share of the two parties down about ten points from the 2018 Landtag election.
The FPO and SPO both made gains to win 7 seats each with the Citizens Forum known as FRITZ gaining a seat for 3 and NEOS unchanged on 2. The question is whether the OVP will go into coalition with the recovering FPO or whether there's scope for an anti-OVP coalition - it's been a while since the SPO and FPO have worked together but with the OVP-Green coalition in serious trouble there could be some re-alignment.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
I’ll be watching on YouTube tomorrow. my dad is going to the ground with friends.
Soundly beating minor county west for a second time should quieten their noisy supporters on here. 😌
Edit. To actually answer your question, Strauss plan wouldn’t happen till 2024, so how do they choose the super 6 from next years two divisions? Any div 2 promotion is about 5 relegated?
It would be four relegated and randomly divided into conferences with the 8 division two counties, I assume.
But that's one of the details they clearly haven't thought of.
Along with reality, fiscal probity and the large swathes of th country they would strip of top level cricket.
(I was doing some sums yesterday. In order to cover the same amount of the population that lives in Australia's six Sheffield Shield cities, you would have to have 35 first class cricket teams in England and Wales. You get right down to Swindon before you have comparable numbers.)
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
This is what happens when you start with a Liszt of silly ideas and try to justify them.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
I think that they are on a Haydn to nothing myself.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
I’ll be watching on YouTube tomorrow. my dad is going to the ground with friends.
Soundly beating minor county west for a second time should quieten their noisy supporters on here. 😌
Edit. To actually answer your question, Strauss plan wouldn’t happen till 2024, so how do they choose the super 6 from next years two divisions? Any div 2 promotion is about 5 relegated?
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
I think that they are on a Haydn to nothing myself.
They failed to parry the enormous number of questions they were asked.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
Don’t know why you started composing those puns in our cricket thread. I would ask, but Ives gotta go to bed.
Yorkshire only need ten points from the match to stay up.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
I’ll be watching on YouTube tomorrow. my dad is going to the ground with friends.
Soundly beating minor county west for a second time should quieten their noisy supporters on here. 😌
Edit. To actually answer your question, Strauss plan wouldn’t happen till 2024, so how do they choose the super 6 from next years two divisions? Any div 2 promotion is about 5 relegated?
Top six of div 1. Not complicated.
So no promotion from div 2? Really? Why should minor county west even bother to turn up 🤭
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
Don’t know why you started composing those puns in our cricket thread. I would ask, but Ives gotta go to bed.
Yorkshire only need ten points from the match to stay up.
And not to be bankrupted by Gale's payout (whatever has been decided it won't be cheap). Or penalised by the ECB.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
This is what happens when you start with a Liszt of silly ideas and try to justify them.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
I think that they are on a Haydn to nothing myself.
They failed to parry the enormous number of questions they were asked.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
I think that they are on a Haydn to nothing myself.
They failed to parry the enormous number of questions they were asked.
They were quite clearly cruising fauré bruising.
Their own fault, they are the ones whose actions with the Hundred saw the feathers Duruflé in the first place.
That is interesting. More and more high tech western kit goes into Ukraine - NATO do seem more emboldened. I’d not be surprised if Ukraine joins NATO now - Putin lost that bargaining chip when his invasion failed
Help pls. Does a pre 2007 enduring ? Power of attorney which mentions financial and affairs but not mentioning health specifically , cover someone eg his daughter to sign as power of attorney for a medical.investigation where authority is required and patient not capable. ?
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
I’ll be watching on YouTube tomorrow. my dad is going to the ground with friends.
Soundly beating minor county west for a second time should quieten their noisy supporters on here. 😌
Edit. To actually answer your question, Strauss plan wouldn’t happen till 2024, so how do they choose the super 6 from next years two divisions? Any div 2 promotion is about 5 relegated?
Top six of div 1. Not complicated.
So no promotion from div 2? Really? Why should minor county west even bother to turn up 🤭
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
Hard to get a Handel on what's going to happen. Sure if they do drop, they'll be Bach.
Don’t know why you started composing those puns in our cricket thread. I would ask, but Ives gotta go to bed.
Yorkshire only need ten points from the match to stay up.
And not to be bankrupted by Gale's payout (whatever has been decided it won't be cheap). Or penalised by the ECB.
One sad note, is Patto’s last game after not being retained.
"Minister: Serbia won’t recognize Russian annexation ‘referendums’ in occupied Ukrainian areas.
Serbian Foreign Minister Nikola Selakovic said that Serbia, a country considered a close ally of Russia, would comply with international law and the UN Charter."
Now, San Francisco and the Bay Area is probably worse. Ditto Manhattan. But if you go to Brooklyn or Queens (or Jersey), then suddenly $150 will get you a decent enough place.
And if you're willing to AirBnB, and to make your own breakfast and lunch, there's no reason why you should be spending more than $125-150/night before whatever you spend going out in the evening.
Comments
Hopefully this post too .
https://twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/1574075642668351489
https://youtu.be/IP_u2JR51_Y
How did Pakistan turn it around?
Big drops in the Southern regions.
And if the national broadcaster, funded by us, spent an entire fortnight almost exclusively using those resources to produce what was at least partly an extended PR exercise on behalf of the Crown, why should the BBC not be able to use the resulting archive ?
Surveys suggest they think everyone under the age of 60 are self-indulgent skivers.
They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.
Rashid would have won that.
The comparable rates for St Petersburg and Moscow are reportedly something around 1% and 0.1%.
Excellent news, thanks Liz, repeat of Zac's amazing campaign to come
So Truss doing whatever crazy stuff she feels like is the system working as normal. If anything is broken, it's the apparent carelessness for the future that the government are showing.
The only check before January 2025 is if sufficient Conservative MPs get sufficiently terrified for their careers that they dump her or distance themselves from the party.
So it'll be good to have a decision on whether baring one's buttocks at the Queen Consort is a crime at common law.
A second win on the bounce for Dale Benkenstein’s side wouldn’t be enough to save them from the drop, but would mean ending the season on a high as attentions turn to bouncing straight back up from Division Two next season.
Sounds like they have already worked out the Strauss review is going nowhere...
It sounds like the monarchy expecting a deference so broad that they should be told to shove it, as a matter of principle.
… One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.
Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household...
As I’ve said before, I’m not a republican, but sheer arrogance like this leads me to think about reconsidering that.
No previous monarch has allowed coverage of the accession council at all, either live or archived, so the broadcasters should count themselves lucky they got any. They got full live coverage and 12 minutes of archive
https://no1apartments.co.uk/st-andrews/
The "interior" aspects of the funeral as well as the lying-in-state at Westminster Hall - yes, I'm sure you're right.
As for the public exterior processions, I think that's a harder one to argue. In contrast to for example George Vi's funeral, many of those lining the procession filmed the event on their phones. Are they breacking any kind of copyright sharing those pictures with others? I'd imagine not.
That’s the kind of cringing attitude towards what is supposed to be a constitutional monarchy, subject to Parliament, that I was criticising.
But if they are, then broadcasters should refuse to sign any such nonsense next time around.
The NASAMS is made by USA 🇺🇸 and Norway 🇳🇴, the system protects Washington D.C, and is the first Advanced NATO Air Defense System delivered to Ukraine
https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/1574085103877341185
The concern is that the royal veto will be used to scrub mildly embarrassing moments from the historic record. At one point the king was seen to be irritated by the presence of a pen on the table at the accession council. The palace is also believed to have raised concerns about a shot from Westminster Hall that featured Mike Tindall, the husband of the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Phillips, checking his watch while observing the Queen lying in state.
But caveat to my rec - it's something I've always wanted to do rather than have done.
Soundly beating minor county west for a second time should quieten their noisy supporters on here. 😌
Edit. To actually answer your question, Strauss plan wouldn’t happen till 2024, so how do they choose the super 6 from next years two divisions? Any div 2 promotion is about 5 relegated?
"Minister: Serbia won’t recognize Russian annexation ‘referendums’ in occupied Ukrainian areas.
Serbian Foreign Minister Nikola Selakovic said that Serbia, a country considered a close ally of Russia, would comply with international law and the UN Charter."
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1574105878344638469?s=20&t=NJCguq6PDmCRk51yQVJDKw
The OVP governed in coalition with the Greens (as at national level) and they held 21 out of the 36 seats in the Landtag. That majority has gone with the OVP losing 3 seats to drop to 14 and the Greens losing a seat and the combined vote share of the two parties down about ten points from the 2018 Landtag election.
The FPO and SPO both made gains to win 7 seats each with the Citizens Forum known as FRITZ gaining a seat for 3 and NEOS unchanged on 2. The question is whether the OVP will go into coalition with the recovering FPO or whether there's scope for an anti-OVP coalition - it's been a while since the SPO and FPO have worked together but with the OVP-Green coalition in serious trouble there could be some re-alignment.
But that's one of the details they clearly haven't thought of.
Along with reality, fiscal probity and the large swathes of th country they would strip of top level cricket.
(I was doing some sums yesterday. In order to cover the same amount of the population that lives in Australia's six Sheffield Shield cities, you would have to have 35 first class cricket teams in England and Wales. You get right down to Swindon before you have comparable numbers.)
Yorkshire only need ten points from the match to stay up.
I don't actually think that's true.
I mean it may be true if you're staying in Manhattan or Santa Monica or Beverly Hills, but it's not true in general.
Let's take Southern California and Nevada.
In San Diego, there are plenty of well rated hotels under $100/night.
In Las Vegas, so long as you avoid major conventions, you can get a decent room for more like $75/night.
And here in LA, so long as you're prepared to avoid the fanciest locations (and stay somewhere very nice and walkable and full of decent bars, restaurants etc), it's perfectly possible to get a nice room for under $150/night.
Now, San Francisco and the Bay Area is probably worse. Ditto Manhattan. But if you go to Brooklyn or Queens (or Jersey), then suddenly $150 will get you a decent enough place.
And if you're willing to AirBnB, and to make your own breakfast and lunch, there's no reason why you should be spending more than $125-150/night before whatever you spend going out in the evening.