The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
To be fair that Jesus fellow travelled around with 12 blokes all the time and never seemed to have a girlfriend.
Wasn't that Chris Eubank Jr?
Have they ever been seen in the same room?
Not sure but in each case the father thought he was god so perhaps there's something in it
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
Tory fanbois are running out of straws to clutch.
They are reduced to mock complaints about Keir being woke and, even as the Tories put up taxes both directly and by stealth, whining about Labour tax rises.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It does but Jesus also forbids remarriage of a divorcee unless the other party committed adultery, Paul opposes homosexuality and arguably women priests too and Leviticus is firmly anti gay (though Jesus never mentioned it).
At least the Roman Catholic Church is consistent, they oppose women priests and oppose women bishops and oppose remarriage of divorced Roman Catholics as well as opposing homosexual marriage too. Evangelicals just seem to pick and choose, they tend to oppose homosexual marriage only of the above
A possible outsider to replace Jacinda Ardern as NZ PM and Leader of the Labour Party is Justice Minister, Kiri Allan.
Allan is relatively young (38) and inexperienced (she entered parliament in 2017), but she is about the only charismatic minister in Ardern’s government.
The assumed front runner, Chris Hipkins, is a bit Matt Hancock-y, and nobody thinks he is likely to do anything but steady the ship before losing power in this year’s election.
Allan would be a wild card, but Labour may prefer to take the gamble, and many will be attracted to the symbolism of NZ’s first Māori (and lesbian) PM.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
Yep the Labour win looks baked in now. I think I can happily get complacent.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Indeed, there is a huge divide from Anglican churches in the US, Wales and Scotland which allow homosexual marriages already in their churches to Anglican churches in Africa, in countries where homosexuality is often still illegal let alone homosexual marriage being legal.
The only way is a conscience basis, let each Province in the Anglican Communion decide its own position.
The Anglican Communion is only a loose alliance anyway, like the Commonwealth except the Archbishop of Canterbury is not even head of it but primus inter pares ie first amongst equals. It is not the Roman Catholic Church which is one united Church where what the Pope and Vatican say goes for Roman Catholic churches across the world
You do realise your last paragraph is an argument _against_ the point you're trying to make.
Do you ever think at all as your fingers move over the keyboard?
He's also contradixcting himself in another way - he once tried to argue that the C of E had superiority over the Episcopal Church of Scotland just because Anglican Communion. (They are sister churches, independently formed.)
The Archbishop of Canterbury however is still first (amongst equals) of the Anglican Communion, not the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church
Shame it’s not something that would qualify him for a speed awareness course. That would be hilarious.
I read somewhere that some areas (all?) do offer the choice between a £100 FPN and a £52 awareness course. Not sure Sunak would be that worried about saving £48 tbh.
Rishi has been given a conditional offer of a fixed penalty by Lancs police.
Plus the partygate one. Three strikes and out?
This one, he def did. The partygate one I kind of feel for him. I don’t think there is any suggestion that Sunak was involved in most of the events. He really was ambushed.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
No the point of establishment is so the Pope is not head of the largest English Christian Church again.
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Not just that. The approach the bishops are taking is cowardly, worldly-political, and leaves the pain to be borne by gay Anglicans.
But, given the rules they have to work in, they're absolutely right to do this terrible stuff.
Rubbish. As @HYUFD says if more people attended church then pretty soon there would be pressure to change. They don't so there isn't.
73% of Danes by contrast are members of the Lutheran Church of Denmark, which allows homosexual marriage and is the established church in Denmark
The main questions of moment are of course will Haydock race tomorrow and will Lingfield race on Sunday?
To other matters and the first sniff of slightly less negative economic data has brought out the first cuckoo of spring, the Mail calling for tax cuts (I see @Big_G_NorthWales has echoed this as well, is this the route to re-election salvation?).
No interest in cutting the deficit or reducing the huge burden of debt interest payments - no, the Mail has resurrected the Truss/Kwarteng nonsense of tax cuts which was so thoroughly repudiated by the markets and indeed the public last year.
10.5% inflation covers a multitude of sins - the small matter of food inflation which is running well above the official rate (perhaps we should pay the nurses not on CPI, RPI or RPIX but on the inflation rate of a pint of milk). Yes, the price of fuel has fallen back to levels last seen in May 2022 - oil itself is down $40 off its early March 2022 peak and actually not much changed from this time last year.
The post-pandemic demand splurge is presumably weakening as more normal economic conditions return and I do agree inflation will ease though how much "credit" belongs to Sunak and Hunt is debatable. I'm more than happy to talk up (or not talk down) the economy but I'm not going to infer or imply any of the credit for any economic improvement belongs to or should be taken by the Government (though no doubt they will).
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
The recent sequence of German chancellors - Schroder/Merkel/Scholz - is looking pretty dubious when it comes to calling decisions which reference Russia. To say the least.
Rishi has been given a conditional offer of a fixed penalty by Lancs police.
Plus the partygate one. Three strikes and out?
This one, he def did. The partygate one I kind of feel for him. I don’t think there is any suggestion that Sunak was involved in most of the events. He really was ambushed.
All a bit silly really. He's a serial lawbreaker but hasn't actually done anything wrong.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
No the point of establishment is so the Pope is not head of the largest English Christian Church again.
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
why would England give up the right to contol its own church - Disestablishing the church means the head is the Pope as HYUFD says. Its not as if the Cof E gets any state financial support
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Even tonight's Omnisis poll has the Tories on 24%, 16% ahead of the 3rd placed LDs, so hardly extinction level.
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
Lancs police would have been better advised to keep out of politics. A word in Sunak's ear would have sufficed. They are taking the p***.
@williamglenn made a compelling case last night that Starmer and multiple offender Blair were substantially worse. Conservative Party Central Office will be trawling through all sorts of Labour nonsense. Lady Fugee's daughter and her self filmed driving offences (a whopping 81mph in a 70) springs to mind.
Fill yer boots Tory spads.
Foolish schoolboy error by the police. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson from Party/ Currygate.
It is also a stupid sideshow smokescreen that protects Zahawi from far more pressing alleged errors.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
If the intention of NATO really were to drive the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible, the US would be sending MBTs. The fact that they are not tells you that that is not the intention.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
No the point of establishment is so the Pope is not head of the largest English Christian Church again.
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
why would England give up the right to contol its own church - Disestablishing the church means the head is the Pope as HYUFD says. Its not as if the Cof E gets any state financial support
Eh? Channelling George Gordon are we?!?
Hasty edit: not intended for you but the previous poster.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
No the point of establishment is so the Pope is not head of the largest English Christian Church again.
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
"rights to marry" my arse. Only if the priest isn't a gay-hater, more like. And even then there is no option, till the bishops stop bashing around.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Even tonight's Omnisis poll has the Tories on 24%, 16% ahead of the 3rd placed LDs, so hardly extinction level.
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
Be not complacent, Young Hyufd.
You know as well as I the vicissitudes our FPTP voting system. 24% easily becomes 20%. Tactical voting can be fun when a Government has that sold-out look. The LDs can even look attractive to voters at such times.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Even tonight's Omnisis poll has the Tories on 24%, 16% ahead of the 3rd placed LDs, so hardly extinction level.
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
Be not complacent, Young Hyufd.
You know as well as I the vicissitudes our FPTP voting system. 24% easily becomes 20%. Tactical voting can be fun when a Government has that sold-out look. The LDs can even look attractive to voters at such times.
Do I think it will happen? No. Could it.....?
Hmmmm........
I doubt it and tactical voting as RedfieldWilton showed this week is less against Sunak than it was for Johnson and Truss
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Even tonight's Omnisis poll has the Tories on 24%, 16% ahead of the 3rd placed LDs, so hardly extinction level.
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
Be not complacent, Young Hyufd.
You know as well as I the vicissitudes our FPTP voting system. 24% easily becomes 20%. Tactical voting can be fun when a Government has that sold-out look. The LDs can even look attractive to voters at such times.
Do I think it will happen? No. Could it.....?
Hmmmm........
I doubt it and tactical voting as RedfieldWilton showed this week is less against Sunak than it was for Johnson and Truss
Only a GE will show the levels of tactical voting.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
No the point of establishment is so the Pope is not head of the largest English Christian Church again.
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
"rights to marry" my arse. Only if the priest isn't a gay-hater, more like. And even then there is no option, till the bishops stop bashing around.
Even the Church of Scotland allows its priests to refuse to marry homosexuals if they have biblical objections.
The Free Church of Scotland doesn't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages let alone full homosexual marriage
Lancs police would have been better advised to keep out of politics. A word in Sunak's ear would have sufficed. They are taking the p***.
@williamglenn made a compelling case last night that Starmer and multiple offender Blair were substantially worse. Conservative Party Central Office will be trawling through all sorts of Labour nonsense. Lady Fugee's daughter and her self filmed driving offences (a whopping 81mph in a 70) springs to mind.
Fill yer boots Tory spads.
Foolish schoolboy error by the police. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson from Party/ Currygate.
It is also a stupid sideshow smokescreen that protects Zahawi from far more pressing alleged errors.
I hadn’t thought of the dead cat angle. Accidental I think though, and the Zahawi story is one of those you can just feel is slowly building up a head of steam into something big. Dan Neidle plugged away gamefully for months with only niche interest and finally it’s getting close to detonation.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Even tonight's Omnisis poll has the Tories on 24%, 16% ahead of the 3rd placed LDs, so hardly extinction level.
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Even tonight's Omnisis poll has the Tories on 24%, 16% ahead of the 3rd placed LDs, so hardly extinction level.
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
Be not complacent, Young Hyufd.
You know as well as I the vicissitudes our FPTP voting system. 24% easily becomes 20%. Tactical voting can be fun when a Government has that sold-out look. The LDs can even look attractive to voters at such times.
Do I think it will happen? No. Could it.....?
Hmmmm........
I doubt it and tactical voting as RedfieldWilton showed this week is less against Sunak than it was for Johnson and Truss
Though the relevant baseline is 2019, surely? It seems pretty clear that there was a big "Anyone But Jez" vote then, which has largely unwound.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
I think a lot of posters are overly guided by the past and expecting a lot more regression than is likely. These are not normal circumstances at all, and the personal and household economic impact of inflation will be felt much more in 2023 than 2022 even as the headline rate falls.
And even if the economy does perk up in a "pounds in your pocket" sort of way, that will just make the screwedupness of the public sector even starker. See 1997, when Britain probably was Booming.
It's also been twelve years since a change of Government, those years have not been an unqualified success, the Alternative is not manifestly unacceptable and there's no reason to think things are magically going to get better.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Even tonight's Omnisis poll has the Tories on 24%, 16% ahead of the 3rd placed LDs, so hardly extinction level.
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
Be not complacent, Young Hyufd.
You know as well as I the vicissitudes our FPTP voting system. 24% easily becomes 20%. Tactical voting can be fun when a Government has that sold-out look. The LDs can even look attractive to voters at such times.
Do I think it will happen? No. Could it.....?
Hmmmm........
I doubt it and tactical voting as RedfieldWilton showed this week is less against Sunak than it was for Johnson and Truss
I don't think Sunak is the problem, Hyufd. It's the Party.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
No the point of establishment is so the Pope is not head of the largest English Christian Church again.
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
"rights to marry" my arse. Only if the priest isn't a gay-hater, more like. And even then there is no option, till the bishops stop bashing around.
Even the Church of Scotland allows its priests to refuse to marry homosexuals if they have biblical objections.
The Free Church of Scotland doesn't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages let alone full homosexual marriage
The Free Church isn't really living up to its name.
Inspired by comments by our travelling wine knapper earlier in the week I decided to do something I would ordinarily never consider, and buy a bottle of 19 Crimes Aussie red this evening.
It’s decent. A little high in ethanol at 14.5% and slightly on the oxidative and jammy side, so has shades of fortified wine about it, but good fruit and reasonable value for money. If I were in Bangkok looking for something reliable I’d happily order it.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
If the intention of NATO really were to drive the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible, the US would be sending MBTs. The fact that they are not tells you that that is not the intention.
I fear that's a logical fallacy, as there are plenty of other reasons they may be reluctant to send MBTs, from the fact they're not the best fit for Ukraine's requirements, through cost, to a need for it to be seen as a part of a coalition of nations.
As one example: perhaps it is believed that the Leo2's are the best MBT for Ukraine to get, and the Bradley the best APC/AFV.
The big question is why no-one has yet sent modern western airplanes or helicopters over (the Seakings we have sent are useful, but not that modern). Russian media got very excited earlier this week when they claimed that the UK was going to send Apaches over.
The lack of modern planes, rather than MBTs, is a better argument to support your point. But again, there are potentially better alternative explanations for that, like cost, training, spares and not wanting Russia to capture the tech.
Personally, I just don't think the Ukrainians have the combat pilots available to make a large number of gifted planes viable. Although I hope I'm wrong, and there are loads of Ukrainian pilots in the US desert.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
No the point of establishment is so the Pope is not head of the largest English Christian Church again.
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
"rights to marry" my arse. Only if the priest isn't a gay-hater, more like. And even then there is no option, till the bishops stop bashing around.
Even the Church of Scotland allows its priests to refuse to marry homosexuals if they have biblical objections.
The Free Church of Scotland doesn't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages let alone full homosexual marriage
The Free Church isn't really living up to its name.
It's free in the sense that it is not subordinated to Crown and State. If HYUFD knew any history, he'd know that is why it was formed.
It can believe what it likes (not that I agree, but ...). The C of E is [edit] subordinated to Crown and State, and it's not following the same laws that every other servant of that State has to follow.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
Agree. I feel sorry for him over party gate. Unlike Boris I think he was stitched up by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. On this one he was banged to rights, but it's trivial stuff. Should be just a fine and forgotten.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
Perhaps I should have suggested they needed to purchase an indulgence from me?
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
That is entirely correct.
I’d add a further point. Repentance requires a willingness to submit with good grace to secular punishment, if one has committed a crime.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.
I am sure it will enthuse some hard of thinking Tory staffers to stir up another Currygate redux.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
Oh no, you're not catching me out that way - I don't know, I haven't attended one.
Lol, OK. Think it'll be the Speed one. Can't think how you'd do one just on seatbelts.
I must sheepishly admit I sometimes don't belt up on short local drives. Why? Not sure. Could be I'm looking for little thrills in a life that has become rather sedate.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.
I am sure it will enthuse some hard of thinking Tory staffers to stir up another Currygate redux.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
That is entirely correct.
I’d add a further point. Repentance requires a willingness to submit with good grace to secular punishment, if one has committed a crime.
Indeed - I have encountered this riff a couple of times. Always seems to be non-Christians using this. Like it's a magic escape from consequences.
Poland providing more MBT's to Ukraine. Sadly, T-72 and not Leo2s.
"Poland is able to train 🇺🇦 brigade and equip it with T-72 tanks and IFVs. “We will be able to both equip and train 🇺🇦 soldiers by the end of March at the brigade level” - Deputy Prime Minister of Poland, Minister of Defense Mariusz Błaszczak"
"If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons."
Hopefully if they won an equal number of seats, then count up how many they came second in.
"If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons."
Hopefully if they won an equal number of seats, then count up how many they came second in.
Thanks. Now suppose this occurred after an election. Their first job is to elect a Speaker.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
That is entirely correct.
I’d add a further point. Repentance requires a willingness to submit with good grace to secular punishment, if one has committed a crime.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.
I am sure it will enthuse some hard of thinking Tory staffers to stir up another Currygate redux.
... I'm thrilled to be joined on the Science Committee by my Republican colleague Dr. George Santos, winner of not only the Nobel Prize, but also the Fields Medal - the top prize in Mathematics - for his groundbreaking work* with imaginary numbers.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
That is entirely correct.
I’d add a further point. Repentance requires a willingness to submit with good grace to secular punishment, if one has committed a crime.
I think all religious traditions have some place for the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not be found out.
Certainly I am not saintly enough to nip over to the nick today to inform them that I was a bit late putting my seat belt on this morning as I drove at 35 in a 30 limit.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
Perhaps I should have suggested they needed to purchase an indulgence from me?
Wenn die Münze im Kästlein klingt, die Seele in den Himmel springt.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.
I am sure it will enthuse some hard of thinking Tory staffers to stir up another Currygate redux.
For those interested in actually learning some facts about Sarah Palin -- I would like to think there are a few here -- you might start with her Wikipedia biography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
In it, you will learn that she was the mayor of a small city, Wasilla, "chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, responsible for overseeing the state's oil and gas fields for safety and efficiency", and governor of Alaska, by the age of 42. Those three executive positions are far more executive expereince than Obama had in 2008. (The only one I know of was chairman of a small foundation that passed out money for education experiments. As far as I know, none of the experiments were great successes, but they did provide jobs for left-wing activists.)
She was attacked unfairly in many ways during and after the 2008 run. There were, in my opinion, three main reasons for those attacks. She was and is pro-life. McCain surprised our journalists by the pick -- and very few of them like to be surprised. And she was from a working class background, something many could never forgive.
All that said, I would not have chosen her for vice president as McCain did, nor would I have chosen Obama for any signficant excutive position. One example: He got passed, barely, his signature domestic policy, Obamacare. At the end of his time as president, life expectancy in the US was declining.
On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
True but two years is an eternity in today's political climate. Think how much the scene changed between 2014 and 2016 with the two referendums.
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.
I am sure it will enthuse some hard of thinking Tory staffers to stir up another Currygate redux.
Wow, that's desperate. Starmer looks about 18 in that clip.
In its slight defence it does state it was from 5 years after seat belt laws were introduced, so is not pretending to be recent (silly as that would be given his clear ageing). However, it does not trouble to tell us what year that makes it, which is clearly relevant, so is still desperate framing.
It's a seat belt fine, the party would be fools to go with a diversion straetgy rather than just move on.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
If the intention of NATO really were to drive the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible, the US would be sending MBTs. The fact that they are not tells you that that is not the intention.
I fear that's a logical fallacy, as there are plenty of other reasons they may be reluctant to send MBTs, from the fact they're not the best fit for Ukraine's requirements, through cost, to a need for it to be seen as a part of a coalition of nations.
As one example: perhaps it is believed that the Leo2's are the best MBT for Ukraine to get, and the Bradley the best APC/AFV.
The big question is why no-one has yet sent modern western airplanes or helicopters over (the Seakings we have sent are useful, but not that modern). Russian media got very excited earlier this week when they claimed that the UK was going to send Apaches over.
The lack of modern planes, rather than MBTs, is a better argument to support your point. But again, there are potentially better alternative explanations for that, like cost, training, spares and not wanting Russia to capture the tech.
Personally, I just don't think the Ukrainians have the combat pilots available to make a large number of gifted planes viable. Although I hope I'm wrong, and there are loads of Ukrainian pilots in the US desert.
I do wonder if the reluctance by both Germany and the US to send MBTs to Ukraine is the fear that they may end up becoming just as much sitting ducks as the Russian tanks were back in March last year, despite their superior armour. Perhaps modern warfare between relatively technologically advanced armies simply doesn't have a place for tanks.
"Germany has become the roadblock at the heart of Europe Berlin is consciously and deliberately stalling on sending Kyiv battle tanks. By Jeremy Cliffe"
Sunak broke the law as Chancellor and got fined. Sunak broke the law as Prime Minister and got fined.
People don't change.
Law makers can be law breakers in fact, it's explicitly the case given the rules about when they automatically lose their seats and when a recall petition may be triggered.
On the 'should' they be law makers question, it is not hard to justify grey areas more.
"Germany has become the roadblock at the heart of Europe Berlin is consciously and deliberately stalling on sending Kyiv battle tanks. By Jeremy Cliffe"
"Germany has become the roadblock at the heart of Europe Berlin is consciously and deliberately stalling on sending Kyiv battle tanks. By Jeremy Cliffe"
It does look pretty bad, but playing devil's advocate it is not as though everyone else seemed to be champing at the bit to send them until very recently. I'm sure there has been a lot talking behind the scenes, but this conversation could have happened 10 months ago.
Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance. Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
That is entirely correct.
I’d add a further point. Repentance requires a willingness to submit with good grace to secular punishment, if one has committed a crime.
I think all religious traditions have some place for the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not be found out.
Certainly I am not saintly enough to nip over to the nick today to inform them that I was a bit late putting my seat belt on this morning as I drove at 35 in a 30 limit.
Plenty of saints were not very saintly, so you should be good.
If you can find some people willing to claim you performed a miracle that would help though.
Comments
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
They are reduced to mock complaints about Keir being woke and, even as the Tories put up taxes both directly and by stealth, whining about Labour tax rises.
What a loser.
At least the Roman Catholic Church is consistent, they oppose women priests and oppose women bishops and oppose remarriage of divorced Roman Catholics as well as opposing homosexual marriage too. Evangelicals just seem to pick and choose, they tend to oppose homosexual marriage only of the above
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak gets fixed penalty notice for not wearing seatbelt in a moving car while filming social media video
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64353054
Of course it's not a resigning offence now, I wonder if it ever would have been?
But unfortunate.
Allan is relatively young (38) and inexperienced (she entered parliament in 2017), but she is about the only charismatic minister in Ardern’s government.
The assumed front runner, Chris Hipkins, is a bit Matt Hancock-y, and nobody thinks he is likely to do anything but steady the ship before losing power in this year’s election.
Allan would be a wild card, but Labour may prefer to take the gamble, and many will be attracted to the symbolism of NZ’s first Māori (and lesbian) PM.
*Uni admissions joke.
https://www.indy100.com/politics/rishi-sunak-contactless-payment-machine
Though having rights to marry and be buried in your Parish church are a bonus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark
The main questions of moment are of course will Haydock race tomorrow and will Lingfield race on Sunday?
To other matters and the first sniff of slightly less negative economic data has brought out the first cuckoo of spring, the Mail calling for tax cuts (I see @Big_G_NorthWales has echoed this as well, is this the route to re-election salvation?).
No interest in cutting the deficit or reducing the huge burden of debt interest payments - no, the Mail has resurrected the Truss/Kwarteng nonsense of tax cuts which was so thoroughly repudiated by the markets and indeed the public last year.
10.5% inflation covers a multitude of sins - the small matter of food inflation which is running well above the official rate (perhaps we should pay the nurses not on CPI, RPI or RPIX but on the inflation rate of a pint of milk). Yes, the price of fuel has fallen back to levels last seen in May 2022 - oil itself is down $40 off its early March 2022 peak and actually not much changed from this time last year.
The post-pandemic demand splurge is presumably weakening as more normal economic conditions return and I do agree inflation will ease though how much "credit" belongs to Sunak and Hunt is debatable. I'm more than happy to talk up (or not talk down) the economy but I'm not going to infer or imply any of the credit for any economic improvement belongs to or should be taken by the Government (though no doubt they will).
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/driving-law/uk-drivers-could-be-hit-with-penalty-points-for-not-wearing-seatbelts/
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
The next GE has Change written over it. However if the Conservative Party is careful and wise it will not have Extinction written on it.
Hmmmm.......
Plus 5% going RefUK to squeeze and plenty of DKs too
@williamglenn made a compelling case last night that Starmer and multiple offender Blair were substantially worse. Conservative Party Central Office will be trawling through all sorts of Labour nonsense. Lady Fugee's daughter and her self filmed driving offences (a whopping 81mph in a 70) springs to mind.
Fill yer boots Tory spads.
Foolish schoolboy error by the police. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson from Party/ Currygate.
It is also a stupid sideshow smokescreen that protects Zahawi from far more pressing alleged errors.
Hasty edit: not intended for you but the previous poster.
You know as well as I the vicissitudes our FPTP voting system. 24% easily becomes 20%. Tactical voting can be fun when a Government has that sold-out look. The LDs can even look attractive to voters at such times.
Do I think it will happen? No. Could it.....?
Hmmmm........
The Free Church of Scotland doesn't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages let alone full homosexual marriage
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
Anyway, if you are sure you are right......
If it did who would be LOTO, or would they share?
Penalties or somesuch? The Tories seem good at them.
It’s decent. A little high in ethanol at 14.5% and slightly on the oxidative and jammy side, so has shades of fortified wine about it, but good fruit and reasonable value for money. If I were in Bangkok looking for something reliable I’d happily order it.
As one example: perhaps it is believed that the Leo2's are the best MBT for Ukraine to get, and the Bradley the best APC/AFV.
The big question is why no-one has yet sent modern western airplanes or helicopters over (the Seakings we have sent are useful, but not that modern). Russian media got very excited earlier this week when they claimed that the UK was going to send Apaches over.
The lack of modern planes, rather than MBTs, is a better argument to support your point. But again, there are potentially better alternative explanations for that, like cost, training, spares and not wanting Russia to capture the tech.
Personally, I just don't think the Ukrainians have the combat pilots available to make a large number of gifted planes viable. Although I hope I'm wrong, and there are loads of Ukrainian pilots in the US desert.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
It can believe what it likes (not that I agree, but ...). The C of E is [edit] subordinated to Crown and State, and it's not following the same laws that every other servant of that State has to follow.
Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
Ray Kurzweil says the internet is making human beings more intelligent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/20/keir-starmer-rejects-sadiq-khans-call-britain-rejoin-eu/
I’d add a further point. Repentance requires a willingness to submit with good grace to secular punishment, if one has committed a crime.
I must sheepishly admit I sometimes don't belt up on short local drives. Why? Not sure. Could be I'm looking for little thrills in a life that has become rather sedate.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1616506967379349536?t=IDuaqPgQyDUObPhoC2HsXg&s=19
"Poland is able to train 🇺🇦 brigade and equip it with T-72 tanks and IFVs.
“We will be able to both equip and train 🇺🇦 soldiers by the end of March at the brigade level” - Deputy Prime Minister of Poland, Minister of Defense Mariusz Błaszczak"
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1616501452372955140
So it looks as though Germany's stopping Poland from exporting Leo2s?
Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975
"If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons."
Hopefully if they won an equal number of seats, then count up how many they came second in.
Now suppose this occurred after an election.
Their first job is to elect a Speaker.
As the only recipient of the Wilson Prize for High-Energy Particle Accelerator Physics serving in Congress*, it can get lonely.
Not anymore!
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepBillFoster/status/1616267380350410754
*True
... I'm thrilled to be joined on the Science Committee by my Republican colleague Dr. George Santos, winner of not only the Nobel Prize, but also the Fields Medal - the top prize in Mathematics - for his groundbreaking work* with imaginary numbers.
*Some sort of not quite true.
Certainly I am not saintly enough to nip over to the nick today to inform them that I was a bit late putting my seat belt on this morning as I drove at 35 in a 30 limit.
Ooof - that didn’t take long…
Two Conservatives backbenchers telling me “on principle” RishiSunak should resign as this is his second fixed penalty notice.
https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1616513955945451531
Wenn die Münze im Kästlein klingt, die Seele in den Himmel springt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
In it, you will learn that she was the mayor of a small city, Wasilla, "chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, responsible for overseeing the state's oil and gas fields for safety and efficiency", and governor of Alaska, by the age of 42. Those three executive positions are far more executive expereince than Obama had in 2008. (The only one I know of was chairman of a small foundation that passed out money for education experiments. As far as I know, none of the experiments were great successes, but they did provide jobs for left-wing activists.)
She was attacked unfairly in many ways during and after the 2008 run. There were, in my opinion, three main reasons for those attacks. She was and is pro-life. McCain surprised our journalists by the pick -- and very few of them like to be surprised. And she was from a working class background, something many could never forgive.
All that said, I would not have chosen her for vice president as McCain did, nor would I have chosen Obama for any signficant excutive position. One example: He got passed, barely, his signature domestic policy, Obamacare. At the end of his time as president, life expectancy in the US was declining.
Sunak broke the law as Chancellor and got fined.
Sunak broke the law as Prime Minister and got fined.
People don't change.
It's a seat belt fine, the party would be fools to go with a diversion straetgy rather than just move on.
"Germany has become the roadblock at the heart of Europe
Berlin is consciously and deliberately stalling on sending Kyiv battle tanks.
By Jeremy Cliffe"
https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/01/germany-ukraine-tanks-roadblock-europe
On the 'should' they be law makers question, it is not hard to justify grey areas more.
If you can find some people willing to claim you performed a miracle that would help though.