We have control, we are a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch.
So we can vote Charles out then? Since we have control...
Yes, we can - vote for a party which advocates a republic, we have a few of them, albeit not very successful at present.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would switch en masse to republicanism overnight.
No, that's not a dodge either, we vote for MPs then trust them to do things for us, and if they don't we vote against them, that's how it works unless you think we've done everything by referendum before.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would just replace him by next in line of succession
We have control, we are a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch.
So we can vote Charles out then? Since we have control...
Yes, we can - vote for a party which advocates a republic, we have a few of them, albeit not very successful at present.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would switch en masse to republicanism overnight.
No, that's not a dodge either, we vote for MPs then trust them to do things for us, and if they don't we vote against them, that's how it works unless you think we've done everything by referendum before.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would just replace him by next in line of succession
That might not be as easy it seems, if the next in line was publicly embroiled in whatever the King had done. Sure, you could work your way down the line, but at that point people would start questioning the point since it wouldn't even be something that (at the time) was a deal breaker, like religion, but something more individual. At which point just put up a literal puppet.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
When was the wealth qualification abolished? I had 1928 in mind.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
When was the wealth qualification abolished? I had 1928 in mind.
1918 for men, 1928 for women. However, you still had multiple voting until 1948.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
I was born in 1946 and had to wait till 1974 for mt first vote
Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections (Turns out they had pretty good climate science.)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 … In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter.
Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models. Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming…
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
When was the wealth qualification abolished? I had 1928 in mind.
1918 for men, 1928 for women. However, you still had multiple voting until 1948.
Multiple voting still lives on in some constituencies.
Indeed. I spent several happy years as a PhD student and post doc playing with lanthanides. Even tried to con a set of rules in my name and my supervisors, but it was far too minor to catch on…
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
We have control, we are a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch.
So we can vote Charles out then? Since we have control...
Yes, we can - vote for a party which advocates a republic, we have a few of them, albeit not very successful at present.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would switch en masse to republicanism overnight.
No, that's not a dodge either, we vote for MPs then trust them to do things for us, and if they don't we vote against them, that's how it works unless you think we've done everything by referendum before.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would just replace him by next in line of succession
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I think it's unlikely enough not to spend time worrying about it.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections (Turns out they had pretty good climate science.)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 … In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter.
Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models. Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming…
Sort of so what, really. This is not like tobacco companies and cancer, because there's no way we were going to, or could have, given up oil anyway.
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I've heard it said that William doesn't travel with all his children at once. I don't know how true it is.
Harry hasn't abdicated so he is still in the line of succession and so would still be in line to inherit. The timing of your scenario would make a difference. If Wills and children died while KCIII was still alive then there would be some time for either a reconciliation, and Harry to become Prince of Wales, or for Harry to abdicate and the succession to move on.
If Wills and children died after Wills had become KWV, with Harry presumably still in California, then decisions would have to be made a lot more quickly, but I'd still expect a KHIX.
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I've heard it said that William doesn't travel with all his children at once. I don't know how true it is.
Harry hasn't abdicated so he is still in the line of succession and so would still be in line to inherit. The running if your scenario would make a difference. If Wills and children died while KCIII was still alive then there would be some time for either a reconciliation, and Harry to become Prince of Wales, or for Harry to abdicate and the succession to move on.
If Wills and children died after Wills had become KWV, with Harry presumably still in California, then decisions would have to be made a lot more quickly, but I'd still expect a KHIX.
I’d be amazed if all four travelled anywhere together.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
We have control, we are a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch.
So we can vote Charles out then? Since we have control...
Yes, we can - vote for a party which advocates a republic, we have a few of them, albeit not very successful at present.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would switch en masse to republicanism overnight.
No, that's not a dodge either, we vote for MPs then trust them to do things for us, and if they don't we vote against them, that's how it works unless you think we've done everything by referendum before.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would just replace him by next in line of succession
That might not be as easy it seems, if the next in line was publicly embroiled in whatever the King had done. Sure, you could work your way down the line, but at that point people would start questioning the point since it wouldn't even be something that (at the time) was a deal breaker, like religion, but something more individual. At which point just put up a literal puppet.
Still better than President Johnson or President Blair or some nonentity ceremonial President no matter how far down the line you went
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
I was born in 1946 and had to wait till 1974 for mt first vote
Why's that given you'd have definitely been eligible in 1970? Just personal circumstances?
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I think it's unlikely enough not to spend time worrying about it.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
He would make a great king. William is just so boring.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
I think there were only 16 000 CO's in WW1 so only a few dozen per constituency. As Ireland didn't have conscription, presumably the voting demographics there were quite different to GB.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
1918 was probably the most radical of all the Representation of the People Acts.
Almost all working class voters were enfranchised, as were women over 30, and there was a huge redistribution of seats, away from small rural boroughs to suburban constituencies.
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I think it's unlikely enough not to spend time worrying about it.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
He would make a great king. William is just so boring.
Being a King is about service, responsibility and duty. Harry cares nothing for those.
The system is f*cked. No one should be able to donate so much, how could it not improperly influence somone holding public office, or legitimately lead a reasonable person to conclude that it had?
If a billionaire were reading this forum and came to the conclusion that you were the answer to the country's problems, and offered you big money to dedicate yourself to politics, what would be the problem?
The billionaire?
Now come on. If Elon Musk decided to augment his philanthropic activities recently shown in the destruction of Twitter by paying me $20 million to sort out education, surely that would be money well spent. Even if it was from a dick.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
A lot of people view Harry as a laughing stock and are egging him on for that reason
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
I think there were only 16 000 CO's in WW1 so only a few dozen per constituency. As Ireland didn't have conscription, presumably the voting demographics there were quite different to GB.
Given there was extraordinarily widespread and systematic fraud in just about every Irish constituency in 1918 it's hard to be sure. But Ireland was always something of a case apart.
It's my understanding that the Irish electorate in 1918 was enfranchised on the same terms as the rest of the UK - it's just there were no conscientious objectors registered - but if somebody can show me otherwise I'm happy to be corrected.
More surprisingly perhaps the act didn't AFAIK strip anyone convicted of participating in the Easter Rising of the vote.
Still better than President Johnson or President Blair or some nonentity ceremonial President no matter how far down the line you went
I actually agree with you on this and why I remain a supporter of the Monarchy.
However, I do baulk at the amount of land owned by the Crown and the wealth of the institution. We can have a Monarchy without the vast estates and all that flows from it. I think we should be seeking to further reduce the Crown's holdings and ensure such land that is retained is as efficiently managed as possible.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
ooh, i missed this;
5. He REALLY hates the media. Doesn't pull his punches on Murdoch and Rothermere. In his own narrative of his life, he's in a constant battle with these people. I do wonder if they've sent him slightly mad. At times it seems like he's fighting ghosts. "Ignore them, dear boy" seems to be his father's advice. Charles is probably right.
The best part is the oscillating frost-bitten todger.
Maybe Elizabeth Arden will market "Todger Cream, by Appointment to HRH The Duke of Sussex."
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
In fact my whole response was to @ping. Messed up quoting. So sorry if that was not clear.
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I think it's unlikely enough not to spend time worrying about it.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
He would make a great king. William is just so boring.
Being a King is about service, responsibility and duty. Harry cares nothing for those.
A bit harsh on a man who served his country in active combat, responsible for the men under his command, and a man who feels a strong duty to help wounded ex-servicemen.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
I think there were only 16 000 CO's in WW1 so only a few dozen per constituency. As Ireland didn't have conscription, presumably the voting demographics there were quite different to GB.
Given there was extraordinarily widespread and systematic fraud in just about every Irish constituency in 1918 it's hard to be sure. But Ireland was always something of a case apart.
It's my understanding that the Irish electorate in 1918 was enfranchised on the same terms as the rest of the UK - it's just there were no conscientious objectors registered - but if somebody can show me otherwise I'm happy to be corrected.
More surprisingly perhaps the act didn't AFAIK strip anyone convicted of participating in the Easter Rising of the vote.
Presumably far fewer Irish actually served in the armed forces though, at least in the Nationalist community, so weren't enfranchised at 18.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
Fine, but you responded to my post, so I reasonably assumed you misread my point. Cheers
Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections (Turns out they had pretty good climate science.)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 … In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter.
Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models. Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming…
Sort of so what, really. This is not like tobacco companies and cancer, because there's no way we were going to, or could have, given up oil anyway.
So they spent several decades spending fairly large amounts of money casting doubt on the science they knew to be correct. A decade earlier start in the move towards renewables might have mad a considerable difference in getting to where we are today.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
I think there were only 16 000 CO's in WW1 so only a few dozen per constituency. As Ireland didn't have conscription, presumably the voting demographics there were quite different to GB.
Given there was extraordinarily widespread and systematic fraud in just about every Irish constituency in 1918 it's hard to be sure. But Ireland was always something of a case apart.
It's my understanding that the Irish electorate in 1918 was enfranchised on the same terms as the rest of the UK - it's just there were no conscientious objectors registered - but if somebody can show me otherwise I'm happy to be corrected.
More surprisingly perhaps the act didn't AFAIK strip anyone convicted of participating in the Easter Rising of the vote.
Presumably far fewer actually served in the armed forces though, at least in the Nationalist community.
IIRC quite a lot of moderate nationalists joined up, encouraged by John Redmond.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Golly. Thinking that as between Charles and Harry, it's old sausage fingers who is entitled to play the "My mother's death" card, is HYUFD grade wackiness.
And this is Meghan level touchy feely guff; that, I am sure, is how you'd diagnose it if it came from her.. "never fully an adult while a parent lives" is utter nonsense talking about a 78 year old man, and on what planet or in which parts of California is it a given that all parents love their children unconditionally, or at all?
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
I was born in 1946 and had to wait till 1974 for mt first vote
Why's that given you'd have definitely been eligible in 1970? Just personal circumstances?
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
In fact my whole response was to @ping. Messed up quoting. So sorry if that was not clear.
Still better than President Johnson or President Blair or some nonentity ceremonial President no matter how far down the line you went
I actually agree with you on this and why I remain a supporter of the Monarchy.
However, I do baulk at the amount of land owned by the Crown and the wealth of the institution. We can have a Monarchy without the vast estates and all that flows from it. I think we should be seeking to further reduce the Crown's holdings and ensure such land that is retained is as efficiently managed as possible.
How much land does the monarch actually own though? Crown estate lands are effectively owned by the Nation with revenues going to the Exchequer. I don't know how much land the Queen held or Charles now holds in his own right.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
I think there were only 16 000 CO's in WW1 so only a few dozen per constituency. As Ireland didn't have conscription, presumably the voting demographics there were quite different to GB.
Given there was extraordinarily widespread and systematic fraud in just about every Irish constituency in 1918 it's hard to be sure. But Ireland was always something of a case apart.
It's my understanding that the Irish electorate in 1918 was enfranchised on the same terms as the rest of the UK - it's just there were no conscientious objectors registered - but if somebody can show me otherwise I'm happy to be corrected.
More surprisingly perhaps the act didn't AFAIK strip anyone convicted of participating in the Easter Rising of the vote.
Presumably far fewer Irish actually served in the armed forces though, at least in the Nationalist community, so weren't enfranchised at 18.
Not necessarily. This website gives 116,000 volunteers and over 200,000 total personnel from Ireland serving in the war.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
"Braverman admits golden visas for super-rich threatened national security Scheme exploited by investors linked to organised crime and terror groups, Home Office review finds" (£)
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
I think there were only 16 000 CO's in WW1 so only a few dozen per constituency. As Ireland didn't have conscription, presumably the voting demographics there were quite different to GB.
Given there was extraordinarily widespread and systematic fraud in just about every Irish constituency in 1918 it's hard to be sure. But Ireland was always something of a case apart.
It's my understanding that the Irish electorate in 1918 was enfranchised on the same terms as the rest of the UK - it's just there were no conscientious objectors registered - but if somebody can show me otherwise I'm happy to be corrected.
More surprisingly perhaps the act didn't AFAIK strip anyone convicted of participating in the Easter Rising of the vote.
Presumably far fewer Irish actually served in the armed forces though, at least in the Nationalist community, so weren't enfranchised at 18.
Not necessarily. This website gives 116,000 volunteers and over 200,000 total personnel from Ireland serving in the war.
We have control, we are a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch.
So we can vote Charles out then? Since we have control...
Yes, we can - vote for a party which advocates a republic, we have a few of them, albeit not very successful at present.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would switch en masse to republicanism overnight.
No, that's not a dodge either, we vote for MPs then trust them to do things for us, and if they don't we vote against them, that's how it works unless you think we've done everything by referendum before.
If a King stepped out of line and refused to abdicate, Parliament would just replace him by next in line of succession
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry.
Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences.
What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
Speaking for myself I'd sooner be cast into a bottomless pit than listen to Harry's story. I enjoyed your post though and agree with much of what you said about public schools though I don't accept it as an excuse. After all isn't that where the stiff upper lip originated?
Perhaps public schools aren't all the same? He shared his with Boris Johnson. I shared mine with Ghislane Maxwell and Captain Hewitt so they've got something in common
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I think it's unlikely enough not to spend time worrying about it.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
He would make a great king. William is just so boring.
Being a King is about service, responsibility and duty. Harry cares nothing for those.
A bit harsh on a man who served his country in active combat, responsible for the men under his command, and a man who feels a strong duty to help wounded ex-servicemen.
Sounds like he was stoned most of the time. And he was the gunner in a helicopter. Not sure he would have had that many men under his command. A platoon sergeant would have had far more responsibility than he had.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I think it's unlikely enough not to spend time worrying about it.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
He would make a great king. William is just so boring.
Being a King is about service, responsibility and duty. Harry cares nothing for those.
A bit harsh on a man who served his country in active combat, responsible for the men under his command, and a man who feels a strong duty to help wounded ex-servicemen.
Sounds like he was stoned most of the time. And he was the gunner in a helicopter. Not sure he would have had that many men under his command. A platoon sergeant would have had far more responsibility than he had.
Never mind all that, tell us the story of how you won the Military Cross.
This society is so unbalanced, old people get everything and young people get screwed over. Time to even the playing field.
Do you know how much the state pension is?
Too much, they've had everything handed to them.
£141.85 per week provided they have contributed towards it for almost their entire working life (otherwise they get less).
You think that is too much for 35 odd years contributions to it?
Depends on the size of the contributions, I would have thought.
And whilst I wouldn't want to go too far with this, there is something awkward about the way that a generation who have tended to vote for low taxes and frugal services and benefits through their working lives are now shocked and appalled at the frugality of pensions and creakyness of health and social care now they are using them more.
Just on the basic split of Labour/Tory I don't think that is as stark as you claim.
a 75 year old today would first have been eligible to vote in an election in 1965
Since then the country has voted 5 times for Labour, 7 times for the Tories and 3 times for a minority or coalition.
And in how many of those elections were people voting for or against taxes. Certainly not in 1979 (winter of Discontent). Nor 1997 (Tory sleaze and ineptitude) or 2019 (Brexit), which are three of the most obvious examples. Indeed the only one I could say for sure where people were voting specifically on a tax policy was May in 2017 where she freaked people out with her 'Death tax'.
Somebody born in 1947 would have been eligible to vote from 1968. The voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1969.*
*discounting the 1918 election where all ex-servicemen regardless of age were enfranchised.
I didn't know that! Did they still have the vote in subsequent GE? It must have shifted the electorate much younger and working class.
Well, yes, because they would almost all have achieved 21 by the time 1922 rocked around, and the same act extended almost universal male suffrage to 21 year olds.
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Thanks for that. Excellent facts that I'd not heard at all before. Fascinating.
It was based on the following logic:
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
I think there were only 16 000 CO's in WW1 so only a few dozen per constituency. As Ireland didn't have conscription, presumably the voting demographics there were quite different to GB.
Given there was extraordinarily widespread and systematic fraud in just about every Irish constituency in 1918 it's hard to be sure. But Ireland was always something of a case apart.
It's my understanding that the Irish electorate in 1918 was enfranchised on the same terms as the rest of the UK - it's just there were no conscientious objectors registered - but if somebody can show me otherwise I'm happy to be corrected.
More surprisingly perhaps the act didn't AFAIK strip anyone convicted of participating in the Easter Rising of the vote.
Presumably far fewer actually served in the armed forces though, at least in the Nationalist community.
IIRC quite a lot of moderate nationalists joined up, encouraged by John Redmond.
My great uncle was one of those - a doctor, trained in Dublin and Cambridge, worked for a time in Wales - joined the RAMC, a cavalry officer, died in September 1915 of a wound that turned septic. Ironic really as he specialised in public health. One of his brothers was more fiercely nationalistic and refused to see him in British Army uniform before he left for the front. The family did not realise how ill he was.
I have his war diary and medical certificates and the butter paper from the family farm in which some of his belongings were wrapped. What a waste.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry.
Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences.
What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
Hey Ping, sorry you’ve been away from PB for a couple of weeks as we would have missed for a couple of weeks the absolute bullshit of your point 3 earlier than tonight.
Having been to public school Harry is an outlier as he’s remarkably thick, has no self awareness and none of us fake an American accent and lift our voices at the end of sentences. We are all aware that if we were a bit stupid we would t have got to fly apaches.
We all have our “Harry” friends working for foxtons, they just don’t get book deals and tv slots because, not that they aren’t as interesting(?) as him, they didn’t have royal parents, which makes you think, would anyone give a rat’s arse about him otherwise.
So when you state school kids are judging the private school kids, maybe understand that most of us are perfectly normal and fun and not fucked up, some are clever, some aren’t, etc etc.
BTW most public schools dont “ape” eton, they were either before Eton or different markets.
Harry is 5th in line to the throne - seems incredibly unlikely but:
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I think it's unlikely enough not to spend time worrying about it.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
He would make a great king. William is just so boring.
Being a King is about service, responsibility and duty. Harry cares nothing for those.
A bit harsh on a man who served his country in active combat, responsible for the men under his command, and a man who feels a strong duty to help wounded ex-servicemen.
Sounds like he was stoned most of the time. And he was the gunner in a helicopter. Not sure he would have had that many men under his command. A platoon sergeant would have had far more responsibility than he had.
Never mind all that, tell us the story of how you won the Military Cross.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Golly. Thinking that as between Charles and Harry, it's old sausage fingers who is entitled to play the "My mother's death" card, is HYUFD grade wackiness.
And this is Meghan level touchy feely guff; that, I am sure, is how you'd diagnose it if it came from her.. "never fully an adult while a parent lives" is utter nonsense talking about a 78 year old man, and on what planet or in which parts of California is it a given that all parents love their children unconditionally, or at all?
It is not guff. It is actually a very personal statement based on my experience of how I felt after each of my parents death and what I have discussed with others in my family. I wrote it not because I take sides (how could I) but in the hope that it might shed some light on why I think that such things - even if true - might be particularly hurtful at such a time. It was a sincere and personal comment. Today is the anniversary of my own father's death which is possibly why I have been thinking about such things.
Now I feel like a complete fool for having said it without realising that someone like you would resort to some offensively trite comeback.
My maths ain’t great but that’s a 2.5 million pound red card. Lol
And a 2 - 1 defeat
It seemed odd to loan a bang out of form youngster for £20m and expect much from the 22 matches. And the media is all “Chelsea thrash rivals in race for UNBELIEVABLE player”
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
White House pledges to cooperate with special counsel over classified documents – as it happened Read more The move to name Robert Hur, a former Trump-appointed federal prosecutor and former top justice department official, was a rapid decision from Garland to insulate the department from possible accusations of political conflicts or interference.
Hur will be responsible for investigating the potential unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents at Biden’s home and his former thinktank, and will have the authority to prosecute any crimes resulting from the investigation, the order signed by Garland said.
“I will conduct the assigned investigation with fair, impartial and dispassionate judgement. I intend to follow the facts swiftly and thoroughly, without fear or favor, and will honor the trust placed in me to perform this service,” Hur said in a statement released by the justice department...
Hard to argue the administration is trying to cover this up.
My maths ain’t great but that’s a 2.5 million pound red card. Lol
And a 2 - 1 defeat
It seemed odd to loan a bang out of form youngster for £20m and expect much from the 22 matches. And the media is all “Chelsea thrash rivals in race for UNBELIEVABLE player”
It’s crazy.
The regime change at Chelsea, both owners and manager seem quite disasterous. What is the new owners transfer strategy?
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
You think that a billionaire is not a target? What about all those football players who keep getting their houses broken into. Should they be able to pay for the local force to dedicate more of their resources to protecting them on a permanent basis?
Harry had protection as a part of his public duties. Paid for by the State. Once he decided he didn't want the hassle of doing those public duties any more he became just like the rest of us in the eyes of the taxpayer who is expected to foot the bill.
My maths ain’t great but that’s a 2.5 million pound red card. Lol
And a 2 - 1 defeat
It seemed odd to loan a bang out of form youngster for £20m and expect much from the 22 matches. And the media is all “Chelsea thrash rivals in race for UNBELIEVABLE player”
It’s crazy.
The regime change at Chelsea, both owners and manager seem quite disasterous. What is the new owners transfer strategy?
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
You think that a billionaire is not a target? What about all those football players who keep getting their houses broken into. Should they be able to pay for the local force to dedicate more of their resources to protecting them on a permanent basis?
Harry had protection as a part of his public duties. Paid for by the State. Once he decided he didn't want the hassle of doing those public duties any more he became just like the rest of us in the eyes of the taxpayer who is expected to foot the bill.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
You think that a billionaire is not a target? What about all those football players who keep getting their houses broken into. Should they be able to pay for the local force to dedicate more of their resources to protecting them on a permanent basis?
Harry had protection as a part of his public duties. Paid for by the State. Once he decided he didn't want the hassle of doing those public duties any more he became just like the rest of us in the eyes of the taxpayer who is expected to foot the bill.
Well, let's see what the courts say.
I think the court of public opinion on this will not be kind to Harry
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
When you say his father has been shot at do you mean this event in Harry’s lived experience?
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Golly. Thinking that as between Charles and Harry, it's old sausage fingers who is entitled to play the "My mother's death" card, is HYUFD grade wackiness.
And this is Meghan level touchy feely guff; that, I am sure, is how you'd diagnose it if it came from her.. "never fully an adult while a parent lives" is utter nonsense talking about a 78 year old man, and on what planet or in which parts of California is it a given that all parents love their children unconditionally, or at all?
It is not guff. It is actually a very personal statement based on my experience of how I felt after each of my parents death and what I have discussed with others in my family. I wrote it not because I take sides (how could I) but in the hope that it might shed some light on why I think that such things - even if true - might be particularly hurtful at such a time. It was a sincere and personal comment. Today is the anniversary of my own father's death which is possibly why I have been thinking about such things.
Now I feel like a complete fool for having said it without realising that someone like you would resort to some offensively trite comeback.
I won't be making that mistake again.
Goodbye.
"Many readers have written in detailing how they didn’t truly become an adult until one or both of their parents died."
Snippet from the Atlantic. It's a cliche and if some feel like that others don't. I don't. There's something distinctly Meghan about your asking us to put Your Truth above our own experience. My personal and strongly held view is that Charles is a self regarding monster, and praying in aid the death at his age 74 of his 96 year old mum cuts no ice whatever.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
You think that a billionaire is not a target? What about all those football players who keep getting their houses broken into. Should they be able to pay for the local force to dedicate more of their resources to protecting them on a permanent basis?
Harry had protection as a part of his public duties. Paid for by the State. Once he decided he didn't want the hassle of doing those public duties any more he became just like the rest of us in the eyes of the taxpayer who is expected to foot the bill.
Well, let's see what the courts say.
I think the court of public opinion on this will not be kind to Harry
Probably not, or at least not in the UK nor in the next few years. How it all looks outside the UK or with the perspective of time, we don't know yet.
I also don't think the court of public opinion has legal force.
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
When you say his father has been shot at do you mean this event in Harry’s lived experience?
I've just finished the audible audiobook version of "Spare" by Prince Harry. Whatever your opinion of Harry, Meg and the monarchy, whatever "side" you're on, its a profoundly important historical document.
Thoughts;
1. Small point, i know, but important - the audiobook version is really excellent. Harry has a gift for narration, probably borne of his public speaking training/experience. Absolutely fantastic narration.
2. Right at the end, it all makes sense. Why he's published the book. It really is laid out in black and white. He needs security. It costs loads (he was quoted $6m/yr). He feels entitled to it because he had no choice about his profile. Prince Andrew gets security, despite his shameful behaviour. Given what happened to his mum, it should be his right.
The family chose to withdraw his security. They must suffer the consequences. What else is a man to do, but to wash his dirty linen in public in exchange for a hefty paycheque, in such a scenario?
It does start to sound a bit like borderline blackmail. That is clearly how the institution works. Both Harry and the institution were playing the game. The institution assumed he would fall back into line. Harry called their bluff. It's all got out of hand. That is, basically, the reason why we are reading this extraordinary book.
3. His early life stuff reaffirms every stereotype us state school kids had/have about public school pricks. I've met lots of people who are some degree of Harry, in their mannerisms, outlook, biases etc. We all have. After reading Spare, I' be embarrassed to send my kid to one of the posher private schools. It doesn't produce normal people, Eton. All the other "top" schools ape it. Why? I get the impression Harry left a lot out about his school days, but from what he did include... well...
4. Drug use. He's pretty open about this and it, frankly, should be shocking. It's blindingly obvious people knew, including his taxpayer funded security - and probably the police. It really is one rule for them, one for the rest of us. I know this is a fairly liberal site where a lot of posters either don't care, or actively abuse drugs, but it's an issue I personally care a lot about. Andrew Sullivan's most recent podcast on Fentanyl is just shocking. This shit is poision, and it's coming our way. I'm probably even further to the right than Priti Patel on drugs, in stark contrast to most of the rest of my politics. The fact Harry is able to be completely open about his hard drug use indicates how much of a non-issue it is in mainstream culture. I think our society is heading in a disasterous directon and few seem to care.
Anyway, that's all for now. I have a few other thoughts, but those are my main takeaways that haven't been majored on by the media. Yet.
What do PB'ers recon? I've been away from PB for a couple of weeks, so have missed the threads where posters chewed the fat on "Spare"
AIUI security was withdrawn when they stopped being full, card carrying Royals. You are in, or you are out. Of course the book, the interviews, the TV series is about money. I asked before what their income source is. Her career seemed to have stalled, and he didn’t want to be a royal anymore.
AIUI it is not the Royal Family which either decides or pays for security by a special unit of the Met police. It is the Home Office - the government in short - and it is taxpayers who pay. It was not the RF which took away his security but the government once he decided to resign from being a working Royal. It was the Canadian government which decided to stop paying for special protection for him when he moved there.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
Read what I posted. I said security was withdrawn. I didn’t say he whom.
I was referring to what @ping said - he said that the RF withdrew security.
That was Harry's claim, that I was referring to. You should read the book.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case. I hope he loses - not because I bear him ill will - but because I don't think that police priorities or assessments of security risks should be distorted by payment. He can pay for private security as others can. But a public service like the police is not something that should be allocated according to a private citizen's wealth and demands.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
As I understand it he was willing to fund it himself, but refused protection by the Royal protection squad, and not allowed to have self funded armed security outside that squad.
So you think that if I were an extremely wealthy British citizen living in another country I should be able to demand that the UK police provide me with specialist officers on a permanent basis as long as I could afford to pay for them?
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
I think the case is about protection while in the UK, not outside it.
Exactly the same applies though. Should Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson be able to buy a better service from the police for their own personal protection simply because they are able to afford it?
Except we know that Harry is a particular target*, so the risk assessment should show a greater need for protection.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
You think that a billionaire is not a target? What about all those football players who keep getting their houses broken into. Should they be able to pay for the local force to dedicate more of their resources to protecting them on a permanent basis?
Harry had protection as a part of his public duties. Paid for by the State. Once he decided he didn't want the hassle of doing those public duties any more he became just like the rest of us in the eyes of the taxpayer who is expected to foot the bill.
Well, let's see what the courts say.
As an aside it is worth looking at who does and does not get protection from SO14. Only the King and his wife, William, Kate and their children get round the clock protection.
Princess Anne, Edward and his wife only get protection when on official royal duties and engagements.
UPDATE: The Foreign Office has tonight been forced to correct major mistakes in a minister's speech to parliament about the removal of British Council contractors from Afghanistan.
Comments
Which gave us a glorious pun.
Matters were suitably oranged by Parliament.
If you need more Prince Harry content, may I recommend one of my fav short-lived reality shows: "I Wanna Marry Harry":
In which a man who looks like Harry tries to fool a bunch of gullible American women into thinking he is the prince. Its absolute trash, and worth a watch 📺🗑️
https://twitter.com/ChloeCondon/status/1613377668191485952/photo/1
The four people above him all live and travel together. So one incident could wipe them all out and leave Harry in line.
OK, it's still very unlikely but is it unlikely enough to ignore the point? If it came about, would Harry become King when Charles died or would someone else? If so who? Andrew is next in line after Harry's children!
(I think there may have been a time when Charles and William always travelled separately? But surely William and his three kids travel together).
I'm not sure whether they were granted it for life or for five years though, so whether it was official or just the natural course of events. Presumably life on the assumption - albeit a false one - that they were all over 18 so within three years would become eligible anyway.
There was a bizarre converse to it - conscientious objectors who had not taken alternative service were stripped of the vote for five years. So they couldn't vote in *any* of the next three general elections.
Happy New Year, Prime Minister. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fresh-blowrishi-sunak-poll-shows-tory-support-historic-low_uk_63c03104e4b0fe267cb7b09a
1) Rare earths aren’t rare
2) Rare earths aren’t earths
3) Lithium isn’t a rare earth
(Turns out they had pretty good climate science.)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063
… In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter.
Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003.
Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models.
Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming…
1) The war would be ongoing at the time of the election;
2) The election would however be about shaping the subsequent course of British society;
3) Therefore, the votes should be cast by those who had borne the greatest burden, i.e. those in the services, and those who had worked in war industries. (This was sued to justify giving women the vote, although ironically most enfranchised women hadn't worked in war industries.)
4) On the other hand, those who hadn't done their bit didn't deserve a say, and should be stripped of the right to vote for at least a short time.
Remember, until certainly 1885 was very much a privilege not a right, so the logic seemed reasonable to most politicians. Even so, De Groot called 4 'an act of conspicuous pique.'
It turned out, of course, that 1 and 2 were false assumptions, but they didn't seem unreasonable when the planning was underway.
It's not long since Prince Andrew was second in line. One of these days, someone far, far worse than Harry will, by chance, ascend to the throne causing a constitutional crisis. Probably not in our lifetimes, and we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the TINY chance of a King Harry simply isn't worth worrying about.
Harry hasn't abdicated so he is still in the line of succession and so would still be in line to inherit. The timing of your scenario would make a difference. If Wills and children died while KCIII was still alive then there would be some time for either a reconciliation, and Harry to become Prince of Wales, or for Harry to abdicate and the succession to move on.
If Wills and children died after Wills had become KWV, with Harry presumably still in California, then decisions would have to be made a lot more quickly, but I'd still expect a KHIX.
Given it was written by Sophia Sleigh.
So it is wrong to say as you do that the family chose to withdraw his security and must somehow suffer the consequences. And Harry was a pretty wealthy man already from what he had inherited.
Now - could Charles have paid privately for Harry's security? Yes he could. But why should he? A grown man in his 30's with a family of his own needs to earn his own living and live within his means. And Harry seems to accept that since he is now suing the U.K. government and demanding that he be allowed to pay for Scotland Yard protection. Which feels a bit entitled to me.
I am not really interested to read the book.
One point I will say is this: the first year - the first months after a bereavement, especially of a parent - are very hard indeed, no matter what your age. You are - in some senses - never fully an adult while a parent lives - but when they die, you become in some sense a child again who has lost a person who loved you unconditionally, you have lost a part of your past and those first months are a succession of "firsts". First Xmas, first birthday etc. It can be unbearable, not least because others forget and you have to outwardly get on with life. But that mourning and grief and coming to terms with it all is hard. To have your own son attack you at this time must feel really hurtful and vindictive. For Harry to do this to his family - despite all that he suffered when he lost his mother - seems very cruel of him. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who says he has had therapy and is happy. People who are content with life don't generally attack their family in such a hurtful way at such a time.
I don't like the way we treat the royals like animals in a zoo. I don't really want to aid and abet that by buying the book etc., A lot of peoples' privacy has been breached - without their consent - and offered up for titillation and public consumption. It somehow does not feel decent to me. Family quarrels - like pretty much all quarrels - should be in private. What is happening here is just an upmarket version of Jerry Springer and not edifying just because those involved have upper class accents and lots of money.
https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1613599573955444751?s=46&t=qpi77x7ShlYPJ11NYTSNaw
If people are troubled by sending tanks to Ukraine, just reclassify them
- The M1A1 is just an SUV with some options
- The Challenger 2 is really a MBVC - Medium Boiling Vessel Carrier
Etc
Almost all working class voters were enfranchised, as were women over 30, and there was a huge redistribution of seats, away from small rural boroughs to suburban constituencies.
The latter, in particular, hit the Liberals hard.
Oh and the whole “proven reserve” nonsense.
It's my understanding that the Irish electorate in 1918 was enfranchised on the same terms as the rest of the UK - it's just there were no conscientious objectors registered - but if somebody can show me otherwise I'm happy to be corrected.
More surprisingly perhaps the act didn't AFAIK strip anyone convicted of participating in the Easter Rising of the vote.
However, I do baulk at the amount of land owned by the Crown and the wealth of the institution. We can have a Monarchy without the vast estates and all that flows from it. I think we should be seeking to further reduce the Crown's holdings and ensure such land that is retained is as efficiently managed as possible.
Maybe Elizabeth Arden will market "Todger Cream, by Appointment to HRH The Duke of Sussex."
In fact my whole response was to @ping. Messed up quoting. So sorry if that was not clear.
Cheers
A decade earlier start in the move towards renewables might have mad a considerable difference in getting to where we are today.
And this is Meghan level touchy feely guff; that, I am sure, is how you'd diagnose it if it came from her.. "never fully an adult while a parent lives" is utter nonsense talking about a 78 year old man, and on what planet or in which parts of California is it a given that all parents love their children unconditionally, or at all?
https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/IrelandandtheFirstWorldWar/
Although Ulster had more volunteers than anywhere else.
Remember, Ireland was a poor country. One way of escape was military service.
He is actually 74.
Good night.
And no thanks re the book. Not interested and I have far far too many books of real interest to me on my "To Read" list.
"Braverman admits golden visas for super-rich threatened national security
Scheme exploited by investors linked to organised crime and terror groups, Home Office review finds" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/braverman-admits-golden-visas-for-super-rich-threatened-national-security-phkkmrd0b
Perhaps public schools aren't all the same? He shared his with Boris Johnson. I shared mine with Ghislane Maxwell and Captain Hewitt so they've got something in common
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/will-friday-13th-be-black-friday-for-britishvolt/
I have his war diary and medical certificates and the butter paper from the family farm in which some of his belongings were wrapped. What a waste.
I thought you were opposed to the privatisation of front line public services?
Having been to public school Harry is an outlier as he’s remarkably thick, has no self awareness and none of us fake an American accent and lift our voices at the end of sentences. We are all aware that if we were a bit stupid we would t have got to fly apaches.
We all have our “Harry” friends working for foxtons, they just don’t get book deals and tv slots because, not that they aren’t as interesting(?) as him, they didn’t have royal parents, which makes you think, would anyone give a rat’s arse about him otherwise.
So when you state school kids are judging the private school kids, maybe understand that most of us are perfectly normal and fun and not fucked up, some are clever, some aren’t, etc etc.
BTW most public schools dont “ape” eton, they were either before Eton or different markets.
Boom in classic car sales caused by ULEZ introduction in London, as buyers flock to exempt older cars…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/drivers-using-classic-cars-beat-sadiq-khans-ulez-charges/
Everyone driving around in 40-year-old cars as daily drivers, will do what exactly for pollution in the capital?
Putin lays into minister Manturov for 'fooling around'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64246902
Now I feel like a complete fool for having said it without realising that someone like you would resort to some offensively trite comeback.
I won't be making that mistake again.
Goodbye.
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1613642840533344269?t=Ib74c00-JnWpY0VzoEk7AA&s=19
It’s crazy.
* His father has been shot at, and his aunt had a kidnap attempt, quite apart from his own mother's tragic death.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/12/biden-more-classified-documents-found-garage-delaware
The US attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed a special counsel on Thursday to investigate Joe Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as vice-president.
White House pledges to cooperate with special counsel over classified documents – as it happened
Read more
The move to name Robert Hur, a former Trump-appointed federal prosecutor and former top justice department official, was a rapid decision from Garland to insulate the department from possible accusations of political conflicts or interference.
Hur will be responsible for investigating the potential unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents at Biden’s home and his former thinktank, and will have the authority to prosecute any crimes resulting from the investigation, the order signed by Garland said.
“I will conduct the assigned investigation with fair, impartial and dispassionate judgement. I intend to follow the facts swiftly and thoroughly, without fear or favor, and will honor the trust placed in me to perform this service,” Hur said in a statement released by the justice department...
Hard to argue the administration is trying to cover this up.
Harry had protection as a part of his public duties. Paid for by the State. Once he decided he didn't want the hassle of doing those public duties any more he became just like the rest of us in the eyes of the taxpayer who is expected to foot the bill.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11627667/Prince-Harry-reveals-sent-fighter-jet-Charles-car-training-Afghanistan.html
Snippet from the Atlantic. It's a cliche and if some feel like that others don't. I don't. There's something distinctly Meghan about your asking us to put Your Truth above our own experience. My personal and strongly held view is that Charles is a self regarding monster, and praying in aid the death at his age 74 of his 96 year old mum cuts no ice whatever.
I also don't think the court of public opinion has legal force.
https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/uk-news/2022/09/14/632204c546163f821f8b45d9.html
There was also a rifle attempt at shooting the Queen in NZ in 1981.
Princess Anne, Edward and his wife only get protection when on official royal duties and engagements.
None of the other Royals get SO14 protection.
Story here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/12/british-council-contractors-afghanistan-allowed-to-come-to-uk