Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings? Or indeed, suggest that his quite privileged life was some kind of post apocalyptic hellscape.
He didn't reveal that he continued to shag his scrubber right up to his wedding night. And this "privileged life" stuff is nonsensical. Does none of Shakespearian or Greek tragedy resonate with you at all, because yebbut at the end of the day these guys is all posho kings living in really nice palaces?
Charles first met Diana when she was 16, got engaged when she was 19, and she gave birth to William before her 21st birthday, while he continued his long running affair with Camilla.
Not much older than Virginia Giuffre, but I suppose Diana at least got a ring out of it.
Quite so. True, absolute evil is thankfully rare, but that's what this is.
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
Funnily enough in this discussion I am reminded of the Japanese view on this. When the World Heritage site of Shuri Castle burnt down a few years ago it was viewed around the world as a calamity. But the Japanese attitude is that they would rebuild it as an exact replica and it will still be the same castle. It will still be a 500 year old medieval castle even though it was built with modern wood, plaster and gilt. Indeed it turns out that the castle that burnt down is itself a replica as the original was destroyed in WW2.
As an archaeologist I find this a difficult concept to accept. Not least because the history of the place is so much more than the broad brushes of its structure. What has been lost - indeed what had already been lost 80 years ago - were all the tiny details of the castle's construction and its occupation. The unintended marks, scuffs and minor damage - intentional or unintentional - that can tell us so much about the real history of a place and which cannot be reconstructed because we may not even know it was there.
And yet I can go online and see photos of Stonehenge - surely one of the most iconic prehistoric sites in the world - being rebuilt in the 1920s and 1950s after earlier botched attempts to reconstruct it at the start of the 20th century. Does that make it any mess of a prehistoric monument?
I ask these questions because I genuinely don't know. How far down the road towards Disneyfication of the past do we go before it stops being history?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
Britain was a country is in the psychological space of accepting that it made a mistake with Brexit, but it doesn't want to do anything about it. How are they going to manage to overthrow the monarchy?
Stalk a board for seven years. Just waiting for your Scooby opening. The catchphrase has been said in innumerable ways. Meddling? Pesky? There's a cornucopia.
This is interesting. Covid was perhaps the beginning of the end for yellow cabs, or is it because nobody travels downtown anymore?
I’m very skeptical of the “London/New York etc is back” idea. The Monday to Friday economy is dead and I don’t think it’s returning.
The number of people who thought NY taxi medallions were a license to print money, and who lost their shirts is quite extraordinary. Michael Cohen - Trump's former attorney - borrowed and lost $22m.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
I wasn't going to bother, but all the media attention has whetted my appetite to read the whole thing.
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings? Or indeed, suggest that his quite privileged life was some kind of post apocalyptic hellscape.
He didn't reveal that he continued to shag his scrubber right up to his wedding night. And this "privileged life" stuff is nonsensical. Does none of Shakespearian or Greek tragedy resonate with you at all, because yebbut at the end of the day these guys is all posho kings living in really nice palaces?
Charles first met Diana when she was 16, got engaged when she was 19, and she gave birth to William before her 21st birthday, while he continued his long running affair with Camilla.
Not much older than Virginia Giuffre, but I suppose Diana at least got a ring out of it.
Quite so. True, absolute evil is thankfully rare, but that's what this is.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
However his attack on Camilla, in the US interview even more than the UK one likely seals his fate.
Harry has said on CBS '“She was the villain. She was the third person in their marriage. She needed to rehabilitate her image,” Harry said in Sunday’s interview, before confirming that he and his brother Prince William begged their father not to marry Camilla.'
That almost certainly means the King will formally remove the HRH title from all but working royals and from Harry and Meghan therefore as well as Andrew (maybe with some consolation role as occasional Commonwealth Ambassadors if they are lucky)
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
He could try doing the unthinkable and being honest about what he believes, even if that means he gets bumped down to the backbenches. I'm not sure why you think he deserves such a combination of admiration and sympathy for lying his way into the leadership.
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
Funnily enough in this discussion I am reminded of the Japanese view on this. When the World Heritage site of Shuri Castle burnt down a few years ago it was viewed around the world as a calamity. But the Japanese attitude is that they would rebuild it as an exact replica and it will still be the same castle. It will still be a 500 year old medieval castle even though it was built with modern wood, plaster and gilt. Indeed it turns out that the castle that burnt down is itself a replica as the original was destroyed in WW2.
As an archaeologist I find this a difficult concept to accept. Not least because the history of the place is so much more than the broad brushes of its structure. What has been lost - indeed what had already been lost 80 years ago - were all the tiny details of the castle's construction and its occupation. The unintended marks, scuffs and minor damage - intentional or unintentional - that can tell us so much about the real history of a place and which cannot be reconstructed because we may not even know it was there.
And yet I can go online and see photos of Stonehenge - surely one of the most iconic prehistoric sites in the world - being rebuilt in the 1920s and 1950s after earlier botched attempts to reconstruct it at the start of the 20th century. Does that make it any mess of a prehistoric monument?
I ask these questions because I genuinely don't know. How far down the road towards Disneyfication of the past do we go before it stops being history?
I meant of course 'less of a prehistoric monument' not 'mess'. Though it might still work as a concept
Stalk a board for seven years. Just waiting for your Scooby opening. The catchphrase has been said in innumerable ways. Meddling? Pesky? There's a cornucopia.
And the revenge of Anthos would’ve been complete. We would’ve succeeded if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
And you know what? We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling juveniles and your unauthorized investigation of our synthetic gator accessories.
I would have succeeded too, if it weren't for you meddling brats probing my crustacean-themed revenge scheme.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshot.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
I agree adultery is sordid. But, it’s really only under the Commonwealth that it was seen as a great evil.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
That's funny because I thought you were arguing about the definition of fabric before you put the goalposts on wheels.
I was arguing we still have Medieval Churches unlike Ydeothur who argued because of fabric changes they are apparently all Victorian
Yes of course you were and ydeothur and Big G didn't hand you your ass when you tried to tell them what fabric meant incorrectly. Honestly you are unbelievable.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
Diana certainly learnt how to play the media game and win, but I think that only came later. At the time of the marriage, I think she was just an innocent teenage Sloaney girl. Indeed that is why she was chosen as an acceptable aristocratic virginal wife for the heir.
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
He could try doing the unthinkable and being honest about what he believes, even if that means he gets bumped down to the backbenches. I'm not sure why you think he deserves such a combination of admiration and sympathy for lying his way into the leadership.
It's a fair question. What does Rishi believe?
We know that he was into Brexit before it was cool, but also that he believes in arithmetic. Eventually had enough of Johnson's terrible behaviour, but after putting up with an awful lot of it.
If there is such a thing as Sunakism, it looks like small state free marketry, but that's not going to fly with the voters, is it?
Stalk a board for seven years. Just waiting for your Scooby opening. The catchphrase has been said in innumerable ways. Meddling? Pesky? There's a cornucopia.
And the revenge of Anthos would’ve been complete. We would’ve succeeded if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
And you know what? We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling juveniles and your unauthorized investigation of our synthetic gator accessories.
I would have succeeded too, if it weren't for you meddling brats probing my crustacean-themed revenge scheme.
You can get a cream for your crustacean-themed revenge scheme at your local free clinic.
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times tomorrow is on this very topic
Brexit is a disaster. Why is that even still a contentious statement? Yesterday our business pages reported on a survey by the manufacturing trade body Make UK which has concluded that political instability since Brexit has made the UK less attractive to investors.
It’s not just “since” Brexit, though, is it? “Since” is too soft. Otherwise it’s like saying that your car has been slower “since” you wrapped it around a lamppost, or that your dog barks less “since” it died. Why have we lost four PMs since the referendum? It’s not like we’ve just been fannying about. It’s because two of them admitted they couldn’t make Brexit work and the other two were erratic chancers who only got the job because they pretended they could. It’s Brexit all the way down.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times tomorrow is on this very topic
Brexit is a disaster. Why is that even still a contentious statement? Yesterday our business pages reported on a survey by the manufacturing trade body Make UK which has concluded that political instability since Brexit has made the UK less attractive to investors.
It’s not just “since” Brexit, though, is it? “Since” is too soft. Otherwise it’s like saying that your car has been slower “since” you wrapped it around a lamppost, or that your dog barks less “since” it died. Why have we lost four PMs since the referendum? It’s not like we’ve just been fannying about. It’s because two of them admitted they couldn’t make Brexit work and the other two were erratic chancers who only got the job because they pretended they could. It’s Brexit all the way down.
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times tomorrow is on this very topic
Brexit is a disaster. Why is that even still a contentious statement? Yesterday our business pages reported on a survey by the manufacturing trade body Make UK which has concluded that political instability since Brexit has made the UK less attractive to investors.
It’s not just “since” Brexit, though, is it? “Since” is too soft. Otherwise it’s like saying that your car has been slower “since” you wrapped it around a lamppost, or that your dog barks less “since” it died. Why have we lost four PMs since the referendum? It’s not like we’ve just been fannying about. It’s because two of them admitted they couldn’t make Brexit work and the other two were erratic chancers who only got the job because they pretended they could. It’s Brexit all the way down.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
That's funny because I thought you were arguing about the definition of fabric before you put the goalposts on wheels.
I was arguing we still have Medieval Churches unlike Ydeothur who argued because of fabric changes they are apparently all Victorian
Yes of course you were and ydeothur and Big G didn't hand you your ass when you tried to tell them what fabric meant incorrectly. Honestly you are unbelievable.
The original argument before you jumped in.
'Me Christmas should still end at Ephiphany in my view, otherwise you cross over into Shrove Tuesday and then Lent.
As for Anglicans stealing their pre 16th century churches from the Roman Catholics, I think there is a case for allowing Catholic parishes to use and share village Medieval Anglican churches, especially in more remote rural areas if there is not a big enough Anglican congregation to use them alone for a service every Sunday. That would also reduce cases of ever more rural Church of England parishes being combined, certainly if more than 5 Church of England parishes would be combined otherwise
YD What is a 'medieval' church? There are plenty of churches where the site has been occupied continuously since the Middle Ages but the building itself is Victorian.
Me If the building, or at least the majority of the building, is not Medieval then it is not a Medieval Church.
A Medieval church which burnt down for example and was rebuilt by the Victorians is not a Medieval Church even though there may originally have been a church there in Medieval times
YD In that case there are almost no medieval churches in this country. Most of them even where original features remain the majority of the fabric is eighteenth century or later, especially Victorian.'
So on YD's argument there are apparently virtually no Medieval churches in England. Though that also means the RCs can't whinge they lost their old churches I suppose
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
He could try doing the unthinkable and being honest about what he believes, even if that means he gets bumped down to the backbenches. I'm not sure why you think he deserves such a combination of admiration and sympathy for lying his way into the leadership.
It's a fair question. What does Rishi believe?
We know that he was into Brexit before it was cool, but also that he believes in arithmetic. Eventually had enough of Johnson's terrible behaviour, but after putting up with an awful lot of it.
If there is such a thing as Sunakism, it looks like small state free marketry, but that's not going to fly with the voters, is it?
Small state free marketry how exactly? By cunningly expanding the size of the state and limiting the freedom of the market?
Boris didn't seem to have a defining credo either. Truss did, but look where that got her.
If it's that contentious, I wonder why Hugo has been boring everyone's tits off with it since 2016.
If it's not contentious, why can neither Sunak nor Starmer say it? (Which is what the article is about)
Because it’s not remotely contentious in “thinking” or “working” circles, ie anyone under the age of 60 who can tie their own shoelaces.
Unfortunately it is still contentious among the rest of the population, and despite being a dwindling minority, they are psephologically distributed in a way not necessarily to Britain’s advantage.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Tony Benn would be delighted. Perhaps negotiating freedom of movement with the EU, without having to abide by any of the trade rules, would be the ideal outcome. But can I convince the rest of the country...?
We're so excited to bring you real-time views from @SpaceCornwall via our mission livestream! Follow along for live tweets as we break through major launch milestones. Learn more about our mission to space and watch the livestream: https://virg.in/J8hC
I was going to go and watch but it isn't a real vertical launch, it's a 747 taking off from a runway. Whoopee doo.
It does have a rocket strapped to it...
Mission Control looks like a Portacabin
It's marvellously lo fi
Any thing the Yanks can do, we can do cheaper...
And better
Except I think their's is the cheap service as it takes up loads of satellites at a time.
But I think they're marketing Cornwall as the bespoke service because it can go up at a precise time that the client wants.
The 90s was full of people thinking they knew the answer to cheap launch.
Staging was terrible - lets do SSTO Turbopumps are expensive - lets eliminate them, with pressure fed rockets, Roton, solids Hybrid rockets are awesome - never mind the weight and ISP Air launch can save you - some percentage of your first stage.
It turned out that all your needed to do was start again and make everything using modern manufacturing processes. And when someone bids 30k USD for a latch for a locker, create your own, based on the latch for a toilet door.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Tony Benn would be delighted. Perhaps negotiating freedom of movement with the EU, without having to abide by any of the trade rules, would be the ideal outcome. But can I convince the rest of the country...?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British history to discover that royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
Stalk a board for seven years. Just waiting for your Scooby opening. The catchphrase has been said in innumerable ways. Meddling? Pesky? There's a cornucopia.
And the revenge of Anthos would’ve been complete. We would’ve succeeded if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
And you know what? We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling juveniles and your unauthorized investigation of our synthetic gator accessories.
I would have succeeded too, if it weren't for you meddling brats probing my crustacean-themed revenge scheme.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
I wasn't going to bother, but all the media attention has whetted my appetite to read the whole thing.
Really?
I won't vilify Harry and Meghan, but nor am I going to read his book.
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
That's funny because I thought you were arguing about the definition of fabric before you put the goalposts on wheels.
I was arguing we still have Medieval Churches unlike Ydeothur who argued because of fabric changes they are apparently all Victorian
Yes of course you were and ydeothur and Big G didn't hand you your ass when you tried to tell them what fabric meant incorrectly. Honestly you are unbelievable.
The original argument before you jumped in.
'Me Christmas should still end at Ephiphany in my view, otherwise you cross over into Shrove Tuesday and then Lent.
As for Anglicans stealing their pre 16th century churches from the Roman Catholics, I think there is a case for allowing Catholic parishes to use and share village Medieval Anglican churches, especially in more remote rural areas if there is not a big enough Anglican congregation to use them alone for a service every Sunday. That would also reduce cases of ever more rural Church of England parishes being combined, certainly if more than 5 Church of England parishes would be combined otherwise
YD What is a 'medieval' church? There are plenty of churches where the site has been occupied continuously since the Middle Ages but the building itself is Victorian.
Me If the building, or at least the majority of the building, is not Medieval then it is not a Medieval Church.
A Medieval church which burnt down for example and was rebuilt by the Victorians is not a Medieval Church even though there may originally have been a church there in Medieval times
YD In that case there are almost no medieval churches in this country. Most of them even where original features remain the majority of the fabric is eighteenth century or later, especially Victorian.'
So on YD's argument there are apparently virtually no Medieval churches in England
I didn't jump in. I didn't take part at all. I just enjoyed it from the sidelines winding you up. I know nothing about churches.
So out of interest do you still think they are wrong re the definition of a building fabric. Go on do it. You know you can. Just say it. 'I got the definition of fabric wrong' It won't hurt.
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
He could try doing the unthinkable and being honest about what he believes, even if that means he gets bumped down to the backbenches. I'm not sure why you think he deserves such a combination of admiration and sympathy for lying his way into the leadership.
It's a fair question. What does Rishi believe?
We know that he was into Brexit before it was cool, but also that he believes in arithmetic. Eventually had enough of Johnson's terrible behaviour, but after putting up with an awful lot of it.
If there is such a thing as Sunakism, it looks like small state free marketry, but that's not going to fly with the voters, is it?
Small state free marketry how exactly? By cunningly expanding the size of the state and limiting the freedom of the market?
Boris didn't seem to have a defining credo either. Truss did, but look where that got her.
Boris did have a Brexit plan- the Brexity Hezza one. Put all the power and money in his hands so that he could make a splash on worthy causes.
Similarly, Mick Lynch had a Brexit plan, to create a socialist state free from the capitalist EU.
TMay had a plan, to keep as many foreigners out as possible.
What does Rishi want to do with the powers he now has? Especially the ones he wouldn't have had had 2026 gone the other way.
If it's that contentious, I wonder why Hugo has been boring everyone's tits off with it since 2016.
If it's not contentious, why can neither Sunak nor Starmer say it? (Which is what the article is about)
Assuming, as Hugo and yourself clearly do, that Starmer and Sunak have the same blindness-stage syphillitic remoaneritis as you two do, perhaps they don't say it because quite a lot of people in the electorate voted for Brexit and still quite like the idea. Far fewer people believe that women can have a cock and balls, but you don't see them taking to the airwaves to put the world to rights on that issue either.
Rushi's problem is that he is not a true HighSparrow believer. He's probably as pragmatic as Starmer, and probably believes now that Brixit was a pile of horseshit..like anyone else with half a brain...
But what can he do? He's got the ERG and some fucking ideological Notrights holding a gun to his head, and the spectre of the obese, loathsome, psychopath Johnson breathing over him if he fucks up, which is more than likely.
Turning it around is really not an option for Sunak. Survival is the only game in town. It's the 4th Innings of a Test Match. His target ia 650...he's lost 4 men, there are 2 days left of clement conditions...he's only looking at holding out at one over at a time....and hoping for a miracle....
He could try doing the unthinkable and being honest about what he believes, even if that means he gets bumped down to the backbenches. I'm not sure why you think he deserves such a combination of admiration and sympathy for lying his way into the leadership.
It's a fair question. What does Rishi believe?
We know that he was into Brexit before it was cool, but also that he believes in arithmetic. Eventually had enough of Johnson's terrible behaviour, but after putting up with an awful lot of it.
If there is such a thing as Sunakism, it looks like small state free marketry, but that's not going to fly with the voters, is it?
Small state free marketry how exactly? By cunningly expanding the size of the state and limiting the freedom of the market?
Boris didn't seem to have a defining credo either. Truss did, but look where that got her.
Boris did have a Brexit plan- the Brexity Hezza one. Put all the power and money in his hands so that he could make a splash on worthy causes.
Similarly, Mick Lynch had a Brexit plan, to create a socialist state free from the capitalist EU.
TMay had a plan, to keep as many foreigners out as possible.
What does Rishi want to do with the powers he now has? Especially the ones he wouldn't have had had 2026 gone the other way.
Rishi’s favourite Brexit policy is freeports, although nobody has figured out how they’re supposed to work yet and he’s kind of run out of time.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
We're so excited to bring you real-time views from @SpaceCornwall via our mission livestream! Follow along for live tweets as we break through major launch milestones. Learn more about our mission to space and watch the livestream: https://virg.in/J8hC
I was going to go and watch but it isn't a real vertical launch, it's a 747 taking off from a runway. Whoopee doo.
It does have a rocket strapped to it...
Mission Control looks like a Portacabin
It's marvellously lo fi
Any thing the Yanks can do, we can do cheaper...
@Scott_xP serendipitously retweets his way to a cheap way of solving the NHS crisis
We're so excited to bring you real-time views from @SpaceCornwall via our mission livestream! Follow along for live tweets as we break through major launch milestones. Learn more about our mission to space and watch the livestream: https://virg.in/J8hC
I was going to go and watch but it isn't a real vertical launch, it's a 747 taking off from a runway. Whoopee doo.
It does have a rocket strapped to it...
Mission Control looks like a Portacabin
It's marvellously lo fi
Any thing the Yanks can do, we can do cheaper...
And better
Except I think their's is the cheap service as it takes up loads of satellites at a time.
But I think they're marketing Cornwall as the bespoke service because it can go up at a precise time that the client wants.
The 90s was full of people thinking they knew the answer to cheap launch.
Staging was terrible - lets do SSTO Turbopumps are expensive - lets eliminate them, with pressure fed rockets, Roton, solids Hybrid rockets are awesome - never mind the weight and ISP Air launch can save you - some percentage of your first stage.
It turned out that all your needed to do was start again and make everything using modern manufacturing processes. And when someone bids 30k USD for a latch for a locker, create your own, based on the latch for a toilet door.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Do you not believe there are certain rights that transcend democracy? Or would it be OK for 51% of the population to vote to kill off the other 49%.
If it's that contentious, I wonder why Hugo has been boring everyone's tits off with it since 2016.
If it's not contentious, why can neither Sunak nor Starmer say it? (Which is what the article is about)
Because it’s not remotely contentious in “thinking” or “working” circles, ie anyone under the age of 60 who can tie their own shoelaces.
Unfortunately it is still contentious among the rest of the population, and despite being a dwindling minority, they are psephologically distributed in a way not necessarily to Britain’s advantage.
Unusually perceptive of you to place the word "thinking" in inverted commas. That's exactly how so many remoaners do it. They don't think, they "think". They're educated remoaners - actually thinking would be gilding the lilly.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Do you not believe there are certain rights that transcend democracy? Or would it be OK for 51% of the population to vote to kill off the other 49%.
Posing the question in this way implies that democracy is about the simple will of the majority. No, that’s majoritarianism.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
I wasn't going to bother, but all the media attention has whetted my appetite to read the whole thing.
Really?
I won't vilify Harry and Meghan, but nor am I going to read his book.
If publishing of all books ceased the day after Harry's book was published and the day after that I was able to devote my life to reading, I'm still very confident that I would die a very long time before I was tempted to read Harry's book.
We're so excited to bring you real-time views from @SpaceCornwall via our mission livestream! Follow along for live tweets as we break through major launch milestones. Learn more about our mission to space and watch the livestream: https://virg.in/J8hC
I was going to go and watch but it isn't a real vertical launch, it's a 747 taking off from a runway. Whoopee doo.
It does have a rocket strapped to it...
Mission Control looks like a Portacabin
It's marvellously lo fi
Any thing the Yanks can do, we can do cheaper...
And better
Except I think their's is the cheap service as it takes up loads of satellites at a time.
But I think they're marketing Cornwall as the bespoke service because it can go up at a precise time that the client wants.
The 90s was full of people thinking they knew the answer to cheap launch.
Staging was terrible - lets do SSTO Turbopumps are expensive - lets eliminate them, with pressure fed rockets, Roton, solids Hybrid rockets are awesome - never mind the weight and ISP Air launch can save you - some percentage of your first stage.
It turned out that all your needed to do was start again and make everything using modern manufacturing processes. And when someone bids 30k USD for a latch for a locker, create your own, based on the latch for a toilet door.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British history to discover that royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
True in the past, but I suspect moving away from bloodline + bastards was necessary to keep public support for the institution.
Had the 1981 wedding been televised with a large caption "He'd rather be with Camilla" at the bottom of the screen, I don't think it would have gone down well.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Do you not believe there are certain rights that transcend democracy? Or would it be OK for 51% of the population to vote to kill off the other 49%.
No but then you know you are using a fallacious argument there. Socialism is not equivalent of 51% of the population voting to kill off the other 49%. Indeed if that were your view of democracy and its benefits I would expect you to be a supporter of absolute monarchies. Which I know you are not.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
"remarkably thick"
Man, you do talk some rubbish.
Watch the eve of marriage video and get back to me about that. She got smarter with time, which is a really uplifting example to all of us.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British human history to discover that people royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
I have to agree with you on this. Musk has shown that, whilst it may be rocket science, it isn't... well, rocket science.
Even though SpaceX deserve a lot of credit for doing it, which of course always trumps talk, there was long a suspicion that the big spaceflight contractors were raking it in and way too cozy. Spaceflight can't be the only field where if given a chance there could be some real disruption, a hell of a lot of defence spending looks nuts to me. You've got to wonder what some other SpaceX-like companies might do to the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, BAE etc.
We're so excited to bring you real-time views from @SpaceCornwall via our mission livestream! Follow along for live tweets as we break through major launch milestones. Learn more about our mission to space and watch the livestream: https://virg.in/J8hC
I was going to go and watch but it isn't a real vertical launch, it's a 747 taking off from a runway. Whoopee doo.
It does have a rocket strapped to it...
Mission Control looks like a Portacabin
It's marvellously lo fi
Any thing the Yanks can do, we can do cheaper...
And better
Except I think their's is the cheap service as it takes up loads of satellites at a time.
But I think they're marketing Cornwall as the bespoke service because it can go up at a precise time that the client wants.
The 90s was full of people thinking they knew the answer to cheap launch.
Staging was terrible - lets do SSTO Turbopumps are expensive - lets eliminate them, with pressure fed rockets, Roton, solids Hybrid rockets are awesome - never mind the weight and ISP Air launch can save you - some percentage of your first stage.
It turned out that all your needed to do was start again and make everything using modern manufacturing processes. And when someone bids 30k USD for a latch for a locker, create your own, based on the latch for a toilet door.
The rest of the world is just kind of stunned - to the point where they ignore the elephant in the room and mutter about responsiveness.
I have to agree with you on this. Musk has shown that, whilst it may be rocket science, it isn't... well, rocket science.
More that you need to apply the rocket science to specific areas. Optimising for cost and serial production, not performance per Kg of rocket is the key.
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Do you not believe there are certain rights that transcend democracy? Or would it be OK for 51% of the population to vote to kill off the other 49%.
No but then you know you are using a fallacious argument there. Socialism is not equivalent of 51% of the population voting to kill off the other 49%. Indeed if that were your view of democracy and its benefits I would expect you to be a supporter of absolute monarchies. Which I know you are not.
I am not.
But I do think the line is a little more blurred than you make out. If 51% of the population voted for pure socialism with the abolition of private property, then I think the other 49% might have a good reason to feel pretty pissed.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
I wasn't going to bother, but all the media attention has whetted my appetite to read the whole thing.
Really?
I won't vilify Harry and Meghan, but nor am I going to read his book.
If publishing of all books ceased the day after Harry's book was published and the day after that I was able to devote my life to reading, I'm still very confident that I would die a very long time before I was tempted to read Harry's book.
If 51% of the population voted for pure socialism with the abolition of private property, then I think the other 49% might have a good reason to feel pretty pissed.
You mean like if 52% voted for us to impose sanctions on ourselves, the other 48% might have a good reason to feel pretty pissed?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British human history to discover that people royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
FTFY.
I am guessing in the most non judgemental way that the presumably forner Mrs F went at it like a stoat with all comers, Sympathy, but no reason to over generalise.
I have to agree with you on this. Musk has shown that, whilst it may be rocket science, it isn't... well, rocket science.
Even though SpaceX deserve a lot of credit for doing it, which of course always trumps talk, there was long a suspicion that the big spaceflight contractors were raking it in and way too cozy. Spaceflight can't be the only field where if given a chance there could be some real disruption, a hell of a lot of defence spending looks nuts to me. You've got to wonder what some other SpaceX-like companies might do to the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, BAE etc.
We can only hope.
It is funny but at the time when Obama decided to cut finding to NASA and end the Constellation programme (the replacement for the Space Shuttle) there were lost of people - and not just the usual suspects on the right - screaming that it was the end of American space programmes and they were handing the whole thing to the Russians and Chinese. One quote from the time was that Obama was leaving the US with "no vision, no destination, and no inspiration". And yet he said at the time that he expected the private sector to pick up the slack and that they could be far more responsive and proactive in their space programmes than the US Government.
And he was absolutely right. It was a genius move from Obama and one I am very grateful for.
We're so excited to bring you real-time views from @SpaceCornwall via our mission livestream! Follow along for live tweets as we break through major launch milestones. Learn more about our mission to space and watch the livestream: https://virg.in/J8hC
I was going to go and watch but it isn't a real vertical launch, it's a 747 taking off from a runway. Whoopee doo.
It does have a rocket strapped to it...
Mission Control looks like a Portacabin
It's marvellously lo fi
Any thing the Yanks can do, we can do cheaper...
And better
Except I think their's is the cheap service as it takes up loads of satellites at a time.
But I think they're marketing Cornwall as the bespoke service because it can go up at a precise time that the client wants.
The 90s was full of people thinking they knew the answer to cheap launch.
Staging was terrible - lets do SSTO Turbopumps are expensive - lets eliminate them, with pressure fed rockets, Roton, solids Hybrid rockets are awesome - never mind the weight and ISP Air launch can save you - some percentage of your first stage.
It turned out that all your needed to do was start again and make everything using modern manufacturing processes. And when someone bids 30k USD for a latch for a locker, create your own, based on the latch for a toilet door.
The rest of the world is just kind of stunned - to the point where they ignore the elephant in the room and mutter about responsiveness.
Modern computers and sensors matter too: those turbopumps always know exactly what pressure they need to feed stuff in at.
You could have done turbo pumps for less than a zillion dollars each anytime after 5 axis lathes got to near optical levels of accuracy - you can machine a mirror finish that looks perfect at an acute angle.
That was in the early 70s - when the machines for exotic aerospace and nuclear weapon manufacture began to emerge on the commercial market.
Even after Barber Nichols made some for the Fastrac program, the rest of the aerospace shut their eyes,stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted LA LA LA....
Took someone spitting on a table to shake that one loose.
For all those deluded souls who still argue that the NYT is a liberal left publication.
Brazilian voters ousted President Jair Bolsonaro after a single tumultuous term on Oct. 30 and returned the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to replace him. Some of Bolsonaro’s supporters did not take defeat quietly. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1612215121903845380
Please explain why Lula is described as a ‘leftist’, and Bolsanaro not ‘authoritarian right’, or ‘semi-fascist’ ?
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings? Or indeed, suggest that his quite privileged life was some kind of post apocalyptic hellscape.
He didn't reveal that he continued to shag his scrubber right up to his wedding night. And this "privileged life" stuff is nonsensical. Does none of Shakespearian or Greek tragedy resonate with you at all, because yebbut at the end of the day these guys is all posho kings living in really nice palaces?
Charles first met Diana when she was 16, got engaged when she was 19, and she gave birth to William before her 21st birthday, while he continued his long running affair with Camilla.
Not much older than Virginia Giuffre, but I suppose Diana at least got a ring out of it.
Quite so. True, absolute evil is thankfully rare, but that's what this is.
That's a bit steep. He was a shitty person and husband, as his repeated adultery shows, but 'true, absolute evil'? Come on, that's just ridiculous.
Sadly, a lot of people are shitty people and husbands, making adultery the bar for absolute evil puts a lot of people in that category, and leaves nowhere to go for true monsters.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
And yet Harry's Spare is currently the best selling book on Amazon in the US, the UK and Australia. (And maybe other places too, but those are the only places I looked.)
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
I wasn't going to bother, but all the media attention has whetted my appetite to read the whole thing.
Really?
I won't vilify Harry and Meghan, but nor am I going to read his book.
I can't see what the point would be - it's ghostwritten I assume so we're not getting to see if he is personally able to write well (though he definitely told the ghostwriter a lot, since there's details that undermine him in it from the reports), and the media will have done a run through of every interesting morsel in there, so why would anyone need to buy it?
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Do you not believe there are certain rights that transcend democracy? Or would it be OK for 51% of the population to vote to kill off the other 49%.
No but then you know you are using a fallacious argument there. Socialism is not equivalent of 51% of the population voting to kill off the other 49%. Indeed if that were your view of democracy and its benefits I would expect you to be a supporter of absolute monarchies. Which I know you are not.
I am not.
But I do think the line is a little more blurred than you make out. If 51% of the population voted for pure socialism with the abolition of private property, then I think the other 49% might have a good reason to feel pretty pissed.
Yes I would. But there are many things that people vote for that make me feel pretty pissed. I would have been pretty pissed had we voted the wrong way (in my eyes) in the EU referendum but I would have accepted it - as I said both before and after the vote at the time. I absolutely sympathise with those who were angered and upset by that vote (all the more so given how they have been treated since) but the vast majority of them accepted it as democracy.
Yes there are areas where democratic decisions can be challenged of course - killing people being a good example - but using such extreme examples does not actually help the argument. At least not the argument/discussion we were having. Equating the formation of a national energy company or the views of Tony Benn with murder or the seizure of private property seems rather wrong headed to me.
Using an infrastructure project to smear Brexit is particularly propagandistic.
Quite stupid too - I thought the line was nothing happened in freeports apart from the grumbling caretaker doing his patrol and the women that does giving the place a dust on Mondays. Apparently they are actually the scene of frenetic marine-killing economic activity. I'm impressed.
For all those deluded souls who still argue that the NYT is a liberal left publication.
Brazilian voters ousted President Jair Bolsonaro after a single tumultuous term on Oct. 30 and returned the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to replace him. Some of Bolsonaro’s supporters did not take defeat quietly. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1612215121903845380
Please explain why Lula is described as a ‘leftist’, and Bolsanaro not ‘authoritarian right’, or ‘semi-fascist’ ?
Possibly they didn’t want to offended Steve Bannon ?
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings? Or indeed, suggest that his quite privileged life was some kind of post apocalyptic hellscape.
He didn't reveal that he continued to shag his scrubber right up to his wedding night. And this "privileged life" stuff is nonsensical. Does none of Shakespearian or Greek tragedy resonate with you at all, because yebbut at the end of the day these guys is all posho kings living in really nice palaces?
Charles first met Diana when she was 16, got engaged when she was 19, and she gave birth to William before her 21st birthday, while he continued his long running affair with Camilla.
Not much older than Virginia Giuffre, but I suppose Diana at least got a ring out of it.
Quite so. True, absolute evil is thankfully rare, but that's what this is.
That's a bit steep. He was a shitty person and husband, as his repeated adultery shows, but 'true, absolute evil'? Come on, that's just ridiculous.
Sadly, a lot of people are shitty people and husbands, making adultery the bar for absolute evil puts a lot of people in that category, and leaves nowhere to go for true monsters.
The best evidence is that he was shagging his current hatchet faced squeeze up to his wedding night with Di and never intended to stop, so not a normal case of adultery. There are two types of people: those who perceive that as exceptionally evil, and utter shits. Choose.
For all those deluded souls who still argue that the NYT is a liberal left publication.
Brazilian voters ousted President Jair Bolsonaro after a single tumultuous term on Oct. 30 and returned the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to replace him. Some of Bolsonaro’s supporters did not take defeat quietly. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1612215121903845380
Please explain why Lula is described as a ‘leftist’, and Bolsanaro not ‘authoritarian right’, or ‘semi-fascist’ ?
Perhaps because it would have been stating the bleeding obvious
I have to agree with you on this. Musk has shown that, whilst it may be rocket science, it isn't... well, rocket science.
Even though SpaceX deserve a lot of credit for doing it, which of course always trumps talk, there was long a suspicion that the big spaceflight contractors were raking it in and way too cozy. Spaceflight can't be the only field where if given a chance there could be some real disruption, a hell of a lot of defence spending looks nuts to me. You've got to wonder what some other SpaceX-like companies might do to the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, BAE etc.
We can only hope.
It is funny but at the time when Obama decided to cut finding to NASA and end the Constellation programme (the replacement for the Space Shuttle) there were lost of people - and not just the usual suspects on the right - screaming that it was the end of American space programmes and they were handing the whole thing to the Russians and Chinese. One quote from the time was that Obama was leaving the US with "no vision, no destination, and no inspiration". And yet he said at the time that he expected the private sector to pick up the slack and that they could be far more responsive and proactive in their space programmes than the US Government.
And he was absolutely right. It was a genius move from Obama and one I am very grateful for.
Actually, the Shuttle program was shut down by Bush II - If you read Wayne Hales blog, he was going round the country closing out the hundreds of part supply contracts as per federal law, long before Obama got to swear the oath.
The reason that this was done was that the Shuttle partisans in NASA had, one very previous occasion, sabotaged the replacement programs. Hence the actual closing off of the Shuttle program - much as with military programs, by making it impossible to restart, the blocks to successor programs are removed.
Obama's mistake - which led to the Senate Launch System comedy - was trying to blanket cancel Constellation. Which meant cutting pork for about 538 members of Congress & the Senate.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
Diana certainly learnt how to play the media game and win, but I think that only came later. At the time of the marriage, I think she was just an innocent teenage Sloaney girl. Indeed that is why she was chosen as an acceptable aristocratic virginal wife for the heir.
That's probably true, though talking her up like a saint, or historic level martyr, as some do, is probably not a necessary reaction.
The BV - in no other tank can you put the kettle on while hatches closed….
The US (and I'm sure lots of others) of others have the RAK15 water and ration heaters. Although the Abrams has an EGT of 500+ deg C so as long as you're not being shot at you can heat anything very rapidly on the exhaust.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British human history to discover that people royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
FTFY.
I am guessing in the most non judgemental way that the presumably forner Mrs F went at it like a stoat with all comers, Sympathy, but no reason to over generalise.
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings? Or indeed, suggest that his quite privileged life was some kind of post apocalyptic hellscape.
He didn't reveal that he continued to shag his scrubber right up to his wedding night. And this "privileged life" stuff is nonsensical. Does none of Shakespearian or Greek tragedy resonate with you at all, because yebbut at the end of the day these guys is all posho kings living in really nice palaces?
Charles first met Diana when she was 16, got engaged when she was 19, and she gave birth to William before her 21st birthday, while he continued his long running affair with Camilla.
Not much older than Virginia Giuffre, but I suppose Diana at least got a ring out of it.
Quite so. True, absolute evil is thankfully rare, but that's what this is.
That's a bit steep. He was a shitty person and husband, as his repeated adultery shows, but 'true, absolute evil'? Come on, that's just ridiculous.
Sadly, a lot of people are shitty people and husbands, making adultery the bar for absolute evil puts a lot of people in that category, and leaves nowhere to go for true monsters.
The best evidence is that he was shagging his current hatchet faced squeeze up to his wedding night with Di and never intended to stop, so not a normal case of adultery. There are two types of people: those who perceive that as exceptionally evil, and utter shits. Choose.
You can put me in the utter shit category I'm afraid - especially given that the marriage was more of less an arranged one.
Diana got a very raw deal, but she wasn't without issues of her own. She had afaicr already tried to push her stepmother down the stairs. It was a bad situation all round.
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings? Or indeed, suggest that his quite privileged life was some kind of post apocalyptic hellscape.
He didn't reveal that he continued to shag his scrubber right up to his wedding night. And this "privileged life" stuff is nonsensical. Does none of Shakespearian or Greek tragedy resonate with you at all, because yebbut at the end of the day these guys is all posho kings living in really nice palaces?
Charles first met Diana when she was 16, got engaged when she was 19, and she gave birth to William before her 21st birthday, while he continued his long running affair with Camilla.
Not much older than Virginia Giuffre, but I suppose Diana at least got a ring out of it.
Quite so. True, absolute evil is thankfully rare, but that's what this is.
That's a bit steep. He was a shitty person and husband, as his repeated adultery shows, but 'true, absolute evil'? Come on, that's just ridiculous.
Sadly, a lot of people are shitty people and husbands, making adultery the bar for absolute evil puts a lot of people in that category, and leaves nowhere to go for true monsters.
The best evidence is that he was shagging his current hatchet faced squeeze up to his wedding night with Di and never intended to stop, so not a normal case of adultery. There are two types of people: those who perceive that as exceptionally evil, and utter shits. Choose.
I choose the latter. 'Exceptionally evil' is a performatively ridiculous characterisation, based on an arbitrary division between 'normal' adultery and, I guess, the really bad kind of adultery.
Charles is a shitty person for doing that, and it's not surprising knowing he acted that way is something his kids might never get over, and something other people can and should rightly give him shit about even now. But exceptionally evil? Give me a break.
I'm not even making a comment on Diana as LuckyGuy might, Charles is a shit for acting that way. But that's no reason to throw around labels like 'absolute evil' - christ, how do you describe serial killers and dictators? You've got nothing to escalate to.
Edit:
Also, why the 'hatchet faced' jibe? I presume that since she was committing the adultery too she is considered fair game as also an evil person, but what relevance are her looks?
Anyway...as. much as I hate to say this (not)...although the dreams of Neo Liberal Tory Brexit lie in tatters after Truss...we have big state interventionism that overrides EU market rules, with Starmers plans for a national energy company at the forefront....
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
Surely that is the point. We - or our leaders - can do what we think is best for the country. If what people want is socialism then, for all I disagree, that is what we should have because that is democracy.
Do you not believe there are certain rights that transcend democracy? Or would it be OK for 51% of the population to vote to kill off the other 49%.
No but then you know you are using a fallacious argument there. Socialism is not equivalent of 51% of the population voting to kill off the other 49%. Indeed if that were your view of democracy and its benefits I would expect you to be a supporter of absolute monarchies. Which I know you are not.
I am not.
But I do think the line is a little more blurred than you make out. If 51% of the population voted for pure socialism with the abolition of private property, then I think the other 49% might have a good reason to feel pretty pissed.
Yes I would. But there are many things that people vote for that make me feel pretty pissed. I would have been pretty pissed had we voted the wrong way (in my eyes) in the EU referendum but I would have accepted it - as I said both before and after the vote at the time. I absolutely sympathise with those who were angered and upset by that vote (all the more so given how they have been treated since) but the vast majority of them accepted it as democracy.
Yes there are areas where democratic decisions can be challenged of course - killing people being a good example - but using such extreme examples does not actually help the argument. At least not the argument/discussion we were having. Equating the formation of a national energy company or the views of Tony Benn with murder or the seizure of private property seems rather wrong headed to me.
That's fair enough, and you are absolutely correct.
I have to agree with you on this. Musk has shown that, whilst it may be rocket science, it isn't... well, rocket science.
Even though SpaceX deserve a lot of credit for doing it, which of course always trumps talk, there was long a suspicion that the big spaceflight contractors were raking it in and way too cozy. Spaceflight can't be the only field where if given a chance there could be some real disruption, a hell of a lot of defence spending looks nuts to me. You've got to wonder what some other SpaceX-like companies might do to the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, BAE etc.
We can only hope.
It is funny but at the time when Obama decided to cut finding to NASA and end the Constellation programme (the replacement for the Space Shuttle) there were lost of people - and not just the usual suspects on the right - screaming that it was the end of American space programmes and they were handing the whole thing to the Russians and Chinese. One quote from the time was that Obama was leaving the US with "no vision, no destination, and no inspiration". And yet he said at the time that he expected the private sector to pick up the slack and that they could be far more responsive and proactive in their space programmes than the US Government.
And he was absolutely right. It was a genius move from Obama and one I am very grateful for.
Actually, the Shuttle program was shut down by Bush II - If you read Wayne Hales blog, he was going round the country closing out the hundreds of part supply contracts as per federal law, long before Obama got to swear the oath.
The reason that this was done was that the Shuttle partisans in NASA had, one very previous occasion, sabotaged the replacement programs. Hence the actual closing off of the Shuttle program - much as with military programs, by making it impossible to restart, the blocks to successor programs are removed.
Obama's mistake - which led to the Senate Launch System comedy - was trying to blanket cancel Constellation. Which meant cutting pork for about 538 members of Congress & the Senate.
Yet another good reason to approve of his actions.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Surely planning a marriage but having no intention of stopping your own affair is worse adultery than love growing cold over the years?
The next Royal Interview should be on the Jeremy Kyle show, with all the protagonists there...
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
Here's a weird theory I can't quite shake completely: As I understand it, Meghan was introduced to Harry by a third person. Anyone who knew about her problems getting along with people close to her, including her father, might have guessed she could cause problems for your monarchy. So, did whoever introduced the two come up with the idea on their own, or were they prompted by someone working for an enemy who does not wish Britain well?
I'm not saying that I would give this theory more than a 1 percent probability, but I can't quite help giving it more than a 0 percent.
(I must add that I have some sympathy for Meghan as a person. She wanted (wants?) to be a famous actress, but appears to have little acting talent, and her looks do not fit any of the "types" that Hollywood currently gives big parts to. Perhaps that will change as the number of mixed-race people here grows.)
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British human history to discover that people royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
FTFY.
I am guessing in the most non judgemental way that the presumably forner Mrs F went at it like a stoat with all comers, Sympathy, but no reason to over generalise.
I think you should take that back and apologize.
More than just an idle suggestion, considering the source.
I have to agree with you on this. Musk has shown that, whilst it may be rocket science, it isn't... well, rocket science.
Even though SpaceX deserve a lot of credit for doing it, which of course always trumps talk, there was long a suspicion that the big spaceflight contractors were raking it in and way too cozy. Spaceflight can't be the only field where if given a chance there could be some real disruption, a hell of a lot of defence spending looks nuts to me. You've got to wonder what some other SpaceX-like companies might do to the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, BAE etc.
We can only hope.
It is funny but at the time when Obama decided to cut finding to NASA and end the Constellation programme (the replacement for the Space Shuttle) there were lost of people - and not just the usual suspects on the right - screaming that it was the end of American space programmes and they were handing the whole thing to the Russians and Chinese. One quote from the time was that Obama was leaving the US with "no vision, no destination, and no inspiration". And yet he said at the time that he expected the private sector to pick up the slack and that they could be far more responsive and proactive in their space programmes than the US Government.
And he was absolutely right. It was a genius move from Obama and one I am very grateful for.
Actually, the Shuttle program was shut down by Bush II - If you read Wayne Hales blog, he was going round the country closing out the hundreds of part supply contracts as per federal law, long before Obama got to swear the oath.
The reason that this was done was that the Shuttle partisans in NASA had, one very previous occasion, sabotaged the replacement programs. Hence the actual closing off of the Shuttle program - much as with military programs, by making it impossible to restart, the blocks to successor programs are removed.
Obama's mistake - which led to the Senate Launch System comedy - was trying to blanket cancel Constellation. Which meant cutting pork for about 538 members of Congress & the Senate.
Yet another good reason to approve of his actions.
Well, trying to make every single member of the House and Senate go cold turkey on politicians favourite drug is a very stupid idea.
Because they will get together and will vote unanimously to turns taps back on.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Surely planning a marriage but having no intention of stopping your own affair is worse adultery than love growing cold over the years?
Some may think so. Others may not feel it renders the actual act any 'better' in the latter situation, so would be irrelevant (has not many an adulterer claimed the love did not grow cold, it meant nothing etc). Either way its a difference of degree, and it just seems to me there are a few degrees between 'regular shitty adulterer' and 'absolute evil', which was the claimed level here. The repetition and foreplanning is definitely worth considering in the judgemental stakes, without being absurd.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British human history to discover that people royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
FTFY.
I am guessing in the most non judgemental way that the presumably forner Mrs F went at it like a stoat with all comers, Sympathy, but no reason to over generalise.
I think you should take that back and apologize.
More than just an idle suggestion, considering the source.
Ignoring suggestions from an alumni of the Evul Vampire Squid Organisation and moderator of this forum....
In the midst of the word he was trying to say, In the midst of his laughter and glee, He had softly and suddenly vanished away— For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
In general, people who rant and rave about other peoples’ sexual depravity rarely practice what they preach.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
It takes only the most cursory reading of British human history to discover that people royalty and the upper classes have the sexual appetites of chimpanzees, and that marital fidelity is unusual among them.
FTFY.
I am guessing in the most non judgemental way that the presumably forner Mrs F went at it like a stoat with all comers, Sympathy, but no reason to over generalise.
I think you should take that back and apologize.
More than just an idle suggestion, considering the source.
Ignoring suggestions from an alumni of the Evul Vampire Squid Organisation and moderator of this forum....
In the midst of the word he was trying to say, In the midst of his laughter and glee, He had softly and suddenly vanished away— For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
I am not recommending this -- let me repeat, I am not recommending this -- but I can't help noting that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided if the UK accepted, formally or even informally, polygamy.
There are, as I understand it, historical precedents, even in Britain.
Comments
As an archaeologist I find this a difficult concept to accept. Not least because the history of the place is so much more than the broad brushes of its structure. What has been lost - indeed what had already been lost 80 years ago - were all the tiny details of the castle's construction and its occupation. The unintended marks, scuffs and minor damage - intentional or unintentional - that can tell us so much about the real history of a place and which cannot be reconstructed because we may not even know it was there.
And yet I can go online and see photos of Stonehenge - surely one of the most iconic prehistoric sites in the world - being rebuilt in the 1920s and 1950s after earlier botched attempts to reconstruct it at the start of the 20th century. Does that make it any mess of a prehistoric monument?
I ask these questions because I genuinely don't know. How far down the road towards Disneyfication of the past do we go before it stops being history?
He may be a whining shit. But his book is a runaway success.
The catchphrase has been said in innumerable ways.
Meddling? Pesky?
There's a cornucopia.
https://scoobydoo.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_"And_I_Would_Have_Gotten_Away_With_It_Too,_If_It_Weren't_For_You_Meddling_Kids"_Quotes
https://twitter.com/AlexKokcharov/status/1612452817431568384?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1612452817431568384|twgr^b59d01328b165f6860b74476e1578ad55e960b99|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/9/2146199/-Ukraine-update-Germany-has-done-more-for-Ukraine-than-most-know-or-acknowledge
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
Harry has said on CBS '“She was the villain. She was the third person in their marriage. She needed to rehabilitate her image,” Harry said in Sunday’s interview, before confirming that he and his brother Prince William begged their father not to marry Camilla.'
That almost certainly means the King will formally remove the HRH title from all but working royals and from Harry and Meghan therefore as well as Andrew (maybe with some consolation role as occasional Commonwealth Ambassadors if they are lucky)
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-camilla-60-minutes-interview-b2258383.html
And the revenge of Anthos would’ve been complete. We would’ve succeeded if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
And you know what? We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling juveniles and your unauthorized investigation of our synthetic gator accessories.
I would have succeeded too, if it weren't for you meddling brats probing my crustacean-themed revenge scheme.
Who would have thought that Brexit was a secret left plot to bring back pure socialism??
We know that he was into Brexit before it was cool, but also that he believes in arithmetic. Eventually had enough of Johnson's terrible behaviour, but after putting up with an awful lot of it.
If there is such a thing as Sunakism, it looks like small state free marketry, but that's not going to fly with the voters, is it?
Brexit is a disaster. Why is that even still a contentious statement? Yesterday our business pages reported on a survey by the manufacturing trade body Make UK which has concluded that political instability since Brexit has made the UK less attractive to investors.
It’s not just “since” Brexit, though, is it? “Since” is too soft. Otherwise it’s like saying that your car has been slower “since” you wrapped it around a lamppost, or that your dog barks less “since” it died. Why have we lost four PMs since the referendum? It’s not like we’ve just been fannying about. It’s because two of them admitted they couldn’t make Brexit work and the other two were erratic chancers who only got the job because they pretended they could. It’s Brexit all the way down.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-and-keir-starmer-can-barely-say-the-b-word-rcqx950vc
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
'Me Christmas should still end at Ephiphany in my view, otherwise you cross over into Shrove Tuesday and then Lent.
As for Anglicans stealing their pre 16th century churches from the Roman Catholics, I think there is a case for allowing Catholic parishes to use and share village Medieval Anglican churches, especially in more remote rural areas if there is not a big enough Anglican congregation to use them alone for a service every Sunday. That would also reduce cases of ever more rural Church of England parishes being combined, certainly if more than 5 Church of England parishes would be combined otherwise
YD What is a 'medieval' church? There are plenty of churches where the site has been occupied continuously since the Middle Ages but the building itself is Victorian.
Me If the building, or at least the majority of the building, is not Medieval then it is not a Medieval Church.
A Medieval church which burnt down for example and was rebuilt by the Victorians is not a Medieval Church even though there may originally have been a church there in Medieval times
YD In that case there are almost no medieval churches in this country. Most of them even where original features remain the majority of the fabric is eighteenth century or later, especially Victorian.'
So on YD's argument there are apparently virtually no Medieval churches in England. Though that also means the RCs can't whinge they lost their old churches I suppose
Boris didn't seem to have a defining credo either. Truss did, but look where that got her.
Unfortunately it is still contentious among the rest of the population, and despite being a dwindling minority, they are psephologically distributed in a way not necessarily to Britain’s advantage.
Staging was terrible - lets do SSTO
Turbopumps are expensive - lets eliminate them, with pressure fed rockets, Roton, solids
Hybrid rockets are awesome - never mind the weight and ISP
Air launch can save you - some percentage of your first stage.
It turned out that all your needed to do was start again and make everything using modern manufacturing processes. And when someone bids 30k USD for a latch for a locker, create your own, based on the latch for a toilet door.
2 Stage Kero-Lox, semi pressure stabilised structure, wiped everyone out.
The rest of the world is just kind of stunned - to the point where they ignore the elephant in the room and mutter about responsiveness.
I won't vilify Harry and Meghan, but nor am I going to read his book.
So out of interest do you still think they are wrong re the definition of a building fabric. Go on do it. You know you can. Just say it. 'I got the definition of fabric wrong' It won't hurt.
Similarly, Mick Lynch had a Brexit plan, to create a socialist state free from the capitalist EU.
TMay had a plan, to keep as many foreigners out as possible.
What does Rishi want to do with the powers he now has? Especially the ones he wouldn't have had had 2026 gone the other way.
Man, you do talk some rubbish.
Such misplaced thinking helped deliver Brexit.
Had the 1981 wedding been televised with a large caption "He'd rather be with Camilla" at the bottom of the screen, I don't think it would have gone down well.
But I do think the line is a little more blurred than you make out. If 51% of the population voted for pure socialism with the abolition of private property, then I think the other 49% might have a good reason to feel pretty pissed.
F went at it like a stoat with all comers, Sympathy, but no reason to over generalise.
It is funny but at the time when Obama decided to cut finding to NASA and end the Constellation programme (the replacement for the Space Shuttle) there were lost of people - and not just the usual suspects on the right - screaming that it was the end of American space programmes and they were handing the whole thing to the Russians and Chinese. One quote from the time was that Obama was leaving the US with "no vision, no destination, and no inspiration". And yet he said at the time that he expected the private sector to pick up the slack and that they could be far more responsive and proactive in their space programmes than the US Government.
And he was absolutely right. It was a genius move from Obama and one I am very grateful for.
That was in the early 70s - when the machines for exotic aerospace and nuclear weapon manufacture began to emerge on the commercial market.
Even after Barber Nichols made some for the Fastrac program, the rest of the aerospace shut their eyes,stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted LA LA LA....
Took someone spitting on a table to shake that one loose.
Brazilian voters ousted President Jair Bolsonaro after a single tumultuous term on Oct. 30 and returned the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to replace him. Some of Bolsonaro’s supporters did not take defeat quietly.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1612215121903845380
Please explain why Lula is described as a ‘leftist’, and Bolsanaro not ‘authoritarian right’, or ‘semi-fascist’ ?
Sadly, a lot of people are shitty people and husbands, making adultery the bar for absolute evil puts a lot of people in that category, and leaves nowhere to go for true monsters.
Yes there are areas where democratic decisions can be challenged of course - killing people being a good example - but using such extreme examples does not actually help the argument. At least not the argument/discussion we were having. Equating the formation of a national energy company or the views of Tony Benn with murder or the seizure of private property seems rather wrong headed to me.
https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/american-far-right-media-embrace-conspiracy-theories-about-january-8
… Bannon defended the rioters, claiming that they include “evangelical Christians that are not prepared to sit there and let a atheistic, Marxist, communist criminal like Lula steal the election and steal their country.”…
But I get your point.
The reason that this was done was that the Shuttle partisans in NASA had, one very previous occasion, sabotaged the replacement programs. Hence the actual closing off of the Shuttle program - much as with military programs, by making it impossible to restart, the blocks to successor programs are removed.
Obama's mistake - which led to the Senate Launch System comedy - was trying to blanket cancel Constellation. Which meant cutting pork for about 538 members of Congress & the Senate.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Diana got a very raw deal, but she wasn't without issues of her own. She had afaicr already tried to push her stepmother down the stairs. It was a bad situation all round.
Charles is a shitty person for doing that, and it's not surprising knowing he acted that way is something his kids might never get over, and something other people can and should rightly give him shit about even now. But exceptionally evil? Give me a break.
I'm not even making a comment on Diana as LuckyGuy might, Charles is a shit for acting that way. But that's no reason to throw around labels like 'absolute evil' - christ, how do you describe serial killers and dictators? You've got nothing to escalate to.
Edit:
Also, why the 'hatchet faced' jibe? I presume that since she was committing the adultery too she is considered fair game as also an evil person, but what relevance are her looks?
Unless, obviously, it's good news. In which case, it's despite Brexit.
The next Royal Interview should be on the Jeremy Kyle show, with all the protagonists there...
I'm not saying that I would give this theory more than a 1 percent probability, but I can't quite help giving it more than a 0 percent.
(I must add that I have some sympathy for Meghan as a person. She wanted (wants?) to be a famous actress, but appears to have little acting talent, and her looks do not fit any of the "types" that Hollywood currently gives big parts to. Perhaps that will change as the number of mixed-race people here grows.)
Because they will get together and will vote unanimously to turns taps back on.
Which they did.
Bridenstine was far smarter at this.
Just wow. "A Santos campaign fundraiser impersonated Kevin McCarthy’s chief of staff to help raise campaign cash."
https://twitter.com/altochulo/status/1612489083938381825
Paul Metcalfe.
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away—
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
There are, as I understand it, historical precedents, even in Britain.