The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
I think the US must be concerned about Ukraine attacking targets inside Russia. I think it is an unnecessary concern. Ukraine has had many opportunities to strike inside Russia and has for the most part spurned these for fear of putting other countries off providing weapons.
Has there ever been a war like this where one side has regularly struck civilian targets inside the enemy country and the other has deliberately avoided hitting almost any target (including important military ones) inside the adversary's country?
Ukraine needs F-16s and any other weapons we can give them. Russia will only stop when they are stopped.
The Falklands War? The UK carefully never declared war and never attacked Argentina.
Not entirely correct, IIRC special ops blew up a number of Super Etendards on the Argentine mainland. Can't remember the detail or why I remember, but I think that is correct
Curiously, Jack Maxey is also involved in the Hunter Biden laptop nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Forensic_analysis ...In March 2022, The Washington Post published the findings of two forensic information analysts it had retained to examine 217 gigabytes of data provided to the paper on a hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey, who represented that its contents came from the laptop. One of the analysts characterized the data as a "disaster" from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Hunter Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed and written files to the drive, both before and after the New York Post story...
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
It’s been a while, but I though Josephus was regarded as reasonably reliable?
Absolutely - but that's reasonably reliable for a first century writer. There are a lot of caveats about any texts from back then.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
It’s been a while, but I though Josephus was regarded as reasonably reliable?
Absolutely - but that's reasonably reliable for a first century writer. There are a lot of caveats about any texts from back then.
The problem with Josephus is less that, than that one of the two references to Jesus has clearly been enhanced by a later Christian scribe. There are serious scholars, e.g. Joseph Hoffman, who discount it on that basis.
However (a) we have what seems to be something close to the original via the writings of Origen, suggesting that the scribe enhanced rather than interpolated and (b) that still leaves the other one.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed.
It was interesting however that when it came to the supernatural elements of Jesus then the podcast hosts said nothing as that was out of bounds for a history podcast. Which I also understand but seems a little strange, given that the whole point of him is that he is supposed to be the son of god, rose again, was a very naughty boy, etc.
Also the funny thing (to me) was that they used throughout the disciples' anglicised names. What was eg Paul or John or Luke's actual names (reminds me ofc of the Eddie Izzard sketch).
My sense was that podcast was keen not to offend.
Yep very much so. Just didn't go there as to that side of things.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Interesting, ta. But rather sad on the contraction of quality arts/music reviewing
There is a hunger for high art out there
Nice article. A very accomplished musician friend of mine (who has a very catholic taste in music) once described Bach as the Prog Metal of classical music. You would have to probably be a musician with a catholic taste to understand that, but the complexity described in the article gives the clue.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
St Alban’s and Lichfield are on my go-to list. Thank you
Lichfield as a whole is a very charming city. Well worth a day of anyone's time.
Not just the cathedral. You also have the Samuel Johnson Birthplace which is a very interesting museum, and the Erasmus Darwin House. Plus there are many beautiful parks and some pretty decent restaurants.
Easy to get to from London as well, it's only about 75 minutes by train, and then three minutes by taxi or effectively tram (well, heavy rail but on what amounts to a suburban line) to the centre.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
I made it to Vannes yesterday, which is a beautiful (in the centre, as usual) city with a huge, interesting cathedral. It was built over five hundred years with changing styles representing those ages. Unfortunately it’s really hard to get good pictures of because there’s no space to the neighbouring buildings
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
Thanks for the update. I had a similar experience myself in London a few weeks ago, after a curry. Was very sudden and I couldn't get to the hotel in time, so was sick over some railings in to some vegetation on a train station platform in a London suburb. I was politely asked by the station staff if I wanted any medical assistance but was then left to it. Not great when it happens.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
It’s been a while, but I though Josephus was regarded as reasonably reliable?
Absolutely - but that's reasonably reliable for a first century writer. There are a lot of caveats about any texts from back then.
The problem with Josephus is less that, than that one of the two references to Jesus has clearly been enhanced by a later Christian scribe. There are serious scholars, e.g. Joseph Hoffman, who discount it on that basis.
However (a) we have what seems to be something close to the original via the writings of Origen, suggesting that the scribe enhanced rather than interpolated and (b) that still leaves the other one.
You know that Nero was a total piece of shit, because Tacitus, who would happily have strung up every one of the atheist degenerates, as he saw Christians, thinks he went too far with his cruelties towards them.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Interesting, ta. But rather sad on the contraction of quality arts/music reviewing
There is a hunger for high art out there
I've started listening to a lot more classical music recently, not sure why but I'm really enjoying it. I was listening to Beethoven's 5th Symphony last night, it's properly mad, and completely brilliant. (I know this is in no way an original observation, but feel moved to make it anyway).
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
If you were driving toward Ely in the Middle Ages you would be thinking “what the fuck is this noisy horseless cart I’ve found myself in?”
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
If you were driving toward Ely in the Middle Ages you would be thinking “what the fuck is this noisy horseless cart I’ve found myself in?”
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
If you were driving toward Ely in the Middle Ages you would be thinking “what the fuck is this noisy horseless cart I’ve found myself in?”
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
If you were driving toward Ely in the Middle Ages you would be thinking “what the fuck is this noisy horseless cart I’ve found myself in?”
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Epecially when you think that until about 1650 or thereabouts it would've been surrounded by marsh. Just the cathedral and a few houses on the hill.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
There's a grey area where the unions reject the pay offer but don't have a sufficient mandate to strike. (One of the teaching unions is in that sticky spot at the moment.)
What the heck happens then? The government are probably happy enough, but what actually happens?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
What if you believe in the Christian God AND you also believe in the Muslim God, and you happen to think they are really one and the same? Many, I presume most, other Christians would say you are not a Christian. Are you a Christian?
There is, of course, no right answer. Religions are not neatly defined things. Any religion followed by more than a handful of people shows a range of beliefs and practices. Religions are diverse, even if their followers sometimes insist otherwise.
It's not up to anyone else is it? Really surprised at the enthusiasm for takfir around here.
Yes and no? I don’t know that relying entirely on self-identification works for all purposes. If someone says they’re a Christian, but they say they worship Tiamat and that the most important principle is that everyone must eat pumpernickel on a Thursday, are they a Christian, or just a madman, or just being deliberately difficult? So I think claims of belonging to a particular religion possibly should be tempered by a broader consideration of whether those claims are supported by a wider community in certain situations, depending on why you are asking the question in the first place.
Even in that case, it seems rather graceless to tell them that they aren't really a Christian. Unless some kind of fraud is being committed.
But I was more thinking of examples like the millions of paid-up members of the Catholic and Evangelical churches in Germany who say they don't believe in God. Even fewer believe in the Devil nowadays, which would once have been seen as heretical.
A lack of imagination is often a hindrance to a more open mind.
Oh I have an imagination, Nigel, don't you worry about that. Controlling it though? There I struggle.
I would hope you have some imagination @kinabalu, and while I feel a little guilty mentioning it (as you seem a nice chap), I do recall that you said you started your career in Chartered Accountancy?
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Interesting, ta. But rather sad on the contraction of quality arts/music reviewing
There is a hunger for high art out there
On which topic this Allen v Selby snooker semi really is one for the purists. You can go out for an hour or two and they'll still be playing the same frame. It's like test cricket at its finest.
A lack of imagination is often a hindrance to a more open mind.
Oh I have an imagination, Nigel, don't you worry about that. Controlling it though? There I struggle.
I would hope you have some imagination @kinabalu, and while I feel a little guilty mentioning it (as you seem a nice chap), I do recall that you said you started your career in Chartered Accountancy?
Most young men would find a career as an accountant unimagineable. Therefore, pursuing such a path is only proof of kinabalu's powers of imagination.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
My parents live near Derby; I live about eight or nine miles outside Cambridge. My house is higher in altitude (203 ft) than their house; in fact it is higher than the centre of Derby (150-170ft).
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
It’s been a while, but I though Josephus was regarded as reasonably reliable?
Absolutely - but that's reasonably reliable for a first century writer. There are a lot of caveats about any texts from back then.
The problem with Josephus is less that, than that one of the two references to Jesus has clearly been enhanced by a later Christian scribe. There are serious scholars, e.g. Joseph Hoffman, who discount it on that basis.
However (a) we have what seems to be something close to the original via the writings of Origen, suggesting that the scribe enhanced rather than interpolated and (b) that still leaves the other one.
You know that Nero was a total piece of shit, because Tacitus, who would happily have strung up every one of the atheist degenerates, as he saw Christians, thinks he went too far with his cruelties towards them.
I've recently been reading The Death of Jesus by Joel Carmichael. although written in 1963, it still has some very interesting things to say about Jesus in the historical record, and indeed in the Gospels. His thesis is that Jesus was not a pacific prophet, but an active leader of a Jewish resistance movement against the Romans, and that there are references in the Gospels which survived attempts to rewrite him after his death. He's working off a very small evidence base and while I don't think he makes his case fully, I think he makes the case that a case could be made (if you see what I mean).
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
They wouldn’t have the technical knowledge to carry it out.
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
Part of me thinks that if you take the analogy of a boxing contest, so long as the Ukrainians are on the back foot the US is clearly in their corner offering support. However let us say Ukraine was to get on top, I think the US would like to turn themselves into the referee and decide when Russia has had enough. Armed with F-16s the Ukrainians might want to carry on fighting.
They might want to Inn that situation, but F-16s won't help them to get very far off their don't have any ammunition.
Someone on here once talked about how the US fine-tuned the support they provided to Croatia to prevent them from going too far when they retook areas of Croatia occupied by Serbia. They have more effective ways of doing this than holding back on F-15s, just in terms of the intelligence support they provide.
So how is one to explain the US position on fighter jets. I find it bewildering. Perhaps other countries are blocking it (Germany?) and the US wants to keep the Nato alliance united. There is also the issue of longer range artillery. How is Ukraine supposed to win if it can't strike Crimea?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Interesting, ta. But rather sad on the contraction of quality arts/music reviewing
There is a hunger for high art out there
I've started listening to a lot more classical music recently, not sure why but I'm really enjoying it. I was listening to Beethoven's 5th Symphony last night, it's properly mad, and completely brilliant. (I know this is in no way an original observation, but feel moved to make it anyway).
The desperate shitness of modern pop music is, I am sure, turning people back to pop music of the golden era (roughly 1965-2005) but also towards classical music
If you look at YouTube videos of great classical renditions they can easily have 10-20m views. Eg:
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Epecially when you think that until about 1650 or thereabouts it would've been surrounded by marsh. Just the cathedral and a few houses on the hill.
Not just Ely; there were a series of 'Isles' in the area: Downham, Witchford, Sutton etc, each of which had a settlement form on top of them.
A lack of imagination is often a hindrance to a more open mind.
Oh I have an imagination, Nigel, don't you worry about that. Controlling it though? There I struggle.
I would hope you have some imagination @kinabalu, and while I feel a little guilty mentioning it (as you seem a nice chap), I do recall that you said you started your career in Chartered Accountancy?
Started and finished actually. The rest was just one long postscript to the early important work.
Whilst I'm on the issue of speculations, here is another one:
So long as the Metropolitan police are responsible for the safety of senior politicians and their families on a daily basis there will be no serious reform of the organisation by said politicians.
A lack of imagination is often a hindrance to a more open mind.
Oh I have an imagination, Nigel, don't you worry about that. Controlling it though? There I struggle.
I would hope you have some imagination @kinabalu, and while I feel a little guilty mentioning it (as you seem a nice chap), I do recall that you said you started your career in Chartered Accountancy?
Most young men would find a career as an accountant unimagineable. Therefore, pursuing such a path is only proof of kinabalu's powers of imagination.
An interesting philosophic idea. Is your suggestion counter-intuitive or is our opinion of accountants driven by conformist bias? Are accountants actually really exciting, racy and imaginative folk, rather than the conformist number crunchers who couldn't think of anything else to do when they left university that so many of us assume is the norm. Or the mode mean or median, as an accountant might observe most wittily.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
They wouldn’t have the technical knowledge to carry it out.
I think you've knocked the nail on the head. Oxford!
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
My parents live near Derby; I live about eight or nine miles outside Cambridge. My house is higher in altitude (203 ft) than their house; in fact it is higher than the centre of Derby (150-170ft).
The River Trent has a lot to answer for...
You must live unusually high for Cambridgeshire then? 203ft is probably well above average for a UK house. My house in South Manchester is only around 100 ft. I doubt Trafford gets up to 200ft.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Epecially when you think that until about 1650 or thereabouts it would've been surrounded by marsh. Just the cathedral and a few houses on the hill.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Interesting, ta. But rather sad on the contraction of quality arts/music reviewing
There is a hunger for high art out there
On which topic this Allen v Selby snooker semi really is one for the purists. You can go out for an hour or two and they'll still be playing the same frame. It's like test cricket at its finest.
There is something to this. Timeless test matches as mentioned the other day would be the cricketing equivalent of a Thorburn/Griffiths 3am finish.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
My parents live near Derby; I live about eight or nine miles outside Cambridge. My house is higher in altitude (203 ft) than their house; in fact it is higher than the centre of Derby (150-170ft).
The River Trent has a lot to answer for...
You must live unusually high for Cambridgeshire then? 203ft is probably well above average for a UK house. My house in South Manchester is only around 100 ft. I doubt Trafford gets up to 200ft.
The most mountainous part of Cambridgeshire is just under 500 feet. Oxygen tanks are required for the fenmen that venture there
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Interesting, ta. But rather sad on the contraction of quality arts/music reviewing
There is a hunger for high art out there
On which topic this Allen v Selby snooker semi really is one for the purists. You can go out for an hour or two and they'll still be playing the same frame. It's like test cricket at its finest.
There is something to this. Timeless test matches as mentioned the other day would be the cricketing equivalent of a Thorburn/Griffiths 3am finish.
I am really enjoying it. I love careful safety play. But I also love watching Mark Allen stand utterly motionless, looking baffled, for upwards of three minutes before executing a shot of quiet brilliance that nevertheless advances the game not one iota.
Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’ When the student assembly voted to require faculty to alert students to upsetting educational materials, administrators pushed back.
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
I think the US must be concerned about Ukraine attacking targets inside Russia. I think it is an unnecessary concern. Ukraine has had many opportunities to strike inside Russia and has for the most part spurned these for fear of putting other countries off providing weapons.
Has there ever been a war like this where one side has regularly struck civilian targets inside the enemy country and the other has deliberately avoided hitting almost any target (including important military ones) inside the adversary's country?
Ukraine needs F-16s and any other weapons we can give them. Russia will only stop when they are stopped.
The Falklands War? The UK carefully never declared war and never attacked Argentina.
Not entirely correct, IIRC special ops blew up a number of Super Etendards on the Argentine mainland. Can't remember the detail or why I remember, but I think that is correct
They did a raid on Pebble Island (on the Falklands) and destroyed a number of light ground attack aircraft.
They did consider a plan to attack an airbase on the mainland. It was mad as a box of frogs. It provoked a virtual mutiny in the SAS - a number of NCOs said they wouldn’t do the planned op. So it was called off.
Per BBC: "union sources say it is "almost certain" that at a meeting of the NHS Staff Council the deal will be ratified, prompting the government to sanction the 5% pay increase and one-off payment."
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
My parents live near Derby; I live about eight or nine miles outside Cambridge. My house is higher in altitude (203 ft) than their house; in fact it is higher than the centre of Derby (150-170ft).
The River Trent has a lot to answer for...
You must live unusually high for Cambridgeshire then? 203ft is probably well above average for a UK house. My house in South Manchester is only around 100 ft. I doubt Trafford gets up to 200ft.
The most mountainous part of Cambridgeshire is just under 500 feet. Oxygen tanks are required for the fenmen that venture there
I rather like (in name) the very long Hills Road. The biggest hill is the railway bridge. Beyond that it it varies by more than 10m I'd be surprised.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Malmesbury, that replying to 2 or 3 posts in one go that you do complicates the look & feel and the blockquotes. Is it passing the cost/benefit test? If you think so, fine. I only ask.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge will likely be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
Malmesbury, that replying to 2 or 3 posts in one go that you do complicates the look & feel and the blockquotes. Is it passing the cost/benefit test? If you think so, fine. I only ask.
Per BBC: "union sources say it is "almost certain" that at a meeting of the NHS Staff Council the deal will be ratified, prompting the government to sanction the 5% pay increase and one-off payment."
The Lib Dems are well into their customary gentle ascent in the polls ahead of local elections, and may even see a little boost afterwards (though the 2019 benchmark is unhelpful as there's a slight LD-Tory swing).
Overall this is a gain of 1 point for LLG vs RefCon
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
Interesting, ta. But rather sad on the contraction of quality arts/music reviewing
There is a hunger for high art out there
On which topic this Allen v Selby snooker semi really is one for the purists. You can go out for an hour or two and they'll still be playing the same frame. It's like test cricket at its finest.
There is something to this. Timeless test matches as mentioned the other day would be the cricketing equivalent of a Thorburn/Griffiths 3am finish.
I am really enjoying it. I love careful safety play. But I also love watching Mark Allen stand utterly motionless, looking baffled, for upwards of three minutes before executing a shot of quiet brilliance that nevertheless advances the game not one iota.
It's incredible stuff. Like a wily legspinner trying to tease out Geoff Boycott over many sessions.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
My parents live near Derby; I live about eight or nine miles outside Cambridge. My house is higher in altitude (203 ft) than their house; in fact it is higher than the centre of Derby (150-170ft).
The River Trent has a lot to answer for...
You must live unusually high for Cambridgeshire then? 203ft is probably well above average for a UK house. My house in South Manchester is only around 100 ft. I doubt Trafford gets up to 200ft.
The most mountainous part of Cambridgeshire is just under 500 feet. Oxygen tanks are required for the fenmen that venture there
I rather like (in name) the very long Hills Road. The biggest hill is the railway bridge. Beyond that it it varies by more than 10m I'd be surprised.
My *assumption* is that Hills Road is so called because it leads to the Gog Magog hills (all of 240 feet) and the Shelford Hill, to the southeast of the city.
I've checked on the OS Map an you seem way out: the ground level (not including the bridge) varies from 40ft at the Catholic Church, to about 50ft near Addenbrookes. So 3 or 4 metres instead of 10.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
My parents live near Derby; I live about eight or nine miles outside Cambridge. My house is higher in altitude (203 ft) than their house; in fact it is higher than the centre of Derby (150-170ft).
The River Trent has a lot to answer for...
You must live unusually high for Cambridgeshire then? 203ft is probably well above average for a UK house. My house in South Manchester is only around 100 ft. I doubt Trafford gets up to 200ft.
The most mountainous part of Cambridgeshire is just under 500 feet. Oxygen tanks are required for the fenmen that venture there
I rather like (in name) the very long Hills Road. The biggest hill is the railway bridge. Beyond that it it varies by more than 10m I'd be surprised.
My *assumption* is that Hills Road is so called because it leads to the Gog Magog hills (all of 240 feet) and the Shelford Hill, to the southeast of the city.
I've checked on the OS Map an you seem way out: the ground level (not including the bridge) varies from 40ft at the Catholic Church, to about 50ft near Addenbrookes. So 3 or 4 metres instead of 10.
Malmesbury, that replying to 2 or 3 posts in one go that you do complicates the look & feel and the blockquotes. Is it passing the cost/benefit test? If you think so, fine. I only ask.
It’s the stupid Vanilla stuff mucking up drafts
Ah, ok, that 'saved after posted' kink. Yes that's a pain. Sorry. As you were then.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
I thought it was the other way around: the north, which was weighed down with ice, is rebounding upwards, whilst the south and east is consequently tilting down slightly?
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
I thought it was the other way around: the north, which was weighed down with ice, is rebounding upwards, whilst the south and east is consequently tilting down slightly?
Of course they’ve got a business plan! Take taxpayer money and create photo ops for the First Minister!
SCOTLAND's public spending auditors have said there remains doubts over the long term future of the taxpayer-owned publicly owned shipyard firm at the centre of the nation's ferry fiasco because of a lack of a business plan.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
Govt must be over 50% across unions with the large unison acceptance, close gmb and narrow defeats at RCN and unite. Also midwifery acceptance. I think they've judged this well , deal looks to be ratified shortly
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
I thought it was the other way around: the north, which was weighed down with ice, is rebounding upwards, whilst the south and east is consequently tilting down slightly?
Actually you are quite correct. My 100% error
Interesting about the lack of sea level rises though. Where is all the water from melting glaciers going? More water vapour in the atmosphere? More vegetation?
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
I don't know about that. The young are much more in favour than the old, just as they were in England for Corbyn.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
I thought it was the other way around: the north, which was weighed down with ice, is rebounding upwards, whilst the south and east is consequently tilting down slightly?
Actually you are quite correct. My 100% error
Interesting about the lack of sea level rises though. Where is all the water from melting glaciers going? More water vapour in the atmosphere? More vegetation?
I believe there is evidence of glaciers growing in other areas. There is also less known about the densities of waters in the deep trenches, but yes it is odd. It is possible there might suddenly be a catastrophic change, but sea level rise has been predicted for probably the last four decades since the earliest discussion of the "greenhouse effect" and so far has not been discernible. The BBC continues to confuse its audience by conflating isostatic change with eustatic
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
I don't know about that. The young are much more in favour than the old, just as they were in England for Corbyn.
Some of the left has aligned with nationalism and this may be the partial driver of that phenomena. Anecdotally you only need to see the bile from nationalist supporters on here, but additionally my own experience form going there regularly some time ago. And I am half Irish ffs!
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
I thought it was the other way around: the north, which was weighed down with ice, is rebounding upwards, whilst the south and east is consequently tilting down slightly?
Actually you are quite correct. My 100% error
Interesting about the lack of sea level rises though. Where is all the water from melting glaciers going? More water vapour in the atmosphere? More vegetation?
It's not true. Global sea level is rising, in a straight line.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
Interesting, thank you. There is no doubt a lot of politics in the whole debate which is not helpful, though that looks pretty compelling.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
But what drives unionism though? What's the basis for it. Three hundred or so years of the act of union? What else overrides independence for Scotland (and Wales, if they choose it). Forget the how, if its economically feasible or not. Just focus on why, or why not.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
Almost all Scots are nationalists with a clear sense of national identity. The question is whether the Scotland is better served being part of a union or as an independent nation. They are both respectable positions.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
But what drives unionism though? What's the basis for it. Three hundred or so years of the act of union? What else overrides independence for Scotland (and Wales, if they choose it). Forget the how, if its economically feasible or not. Just focus on why, or why not.
When ever making a decision of great consequence, particularly where there is great division, then the question that needs to be asked is "what is the benefit?" Remember the so-far elusive "benefits of Brexit"?
Scottish nationalism is similar to British nationalism. It assumes an exceptionalism, with many of it's adherents simply driven by an irrational hatred of "the other lot".
Scottish separatism and Brexitism are two cheeks of the same ugly arse. Pointless philosophies that try to excuse the filthy raison d'etre which is hatred of the foreigner. No, no no, say the apologists, like those who wanted to believe that Russian nationalism was benign.
Comments
it is a fine site that can interestingly and movingly discuss such things get also get a grip on the polling implications of local elections in Wick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Forensic_analysis
...In March 2022, The Washington Post published the findings of two forensic information analysts it had retained to examine 217 gigabytes of data provided to the paper on a hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey, who represented that its contents came from the laptop. One of the analysts characterized the data as a "disaster" from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Hunter Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed and written files to the drive, both before and after the New York Post story...
There is a hunger for high art out there
There are a lot of caveats about any texts from back then.
Labour leads the Conservatives on EVERY issue.
Which party do voters trust the most on...? (Labour | the Conservatives)
NHS (40% | 18%)
Education (35% | 20%)
The Economy (35% | 26%)
Crime (31% | 23%)
Foreign Affairs (33% | 26%)
Immigration (30% | 24%)
Ukraine (28% | 27%)
However (a) we have what seems to be something close to the original via the writings of Origen, suggesting that the scribe enhanced rather than interpolated and (b) that still leaves the other one.
St Alban’s and Lichfield are on my go-to list. Thank you
Turnout 55%
GMB result later today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65425285
Not just the cathedral. You also have the Samuel Johnson Birthplace which is a very interesting museum, and the Erasmus Darwin House. Plus there are many beautiful parks and some pretty decent restaurants.
Easy to get to from London as well, it's only about 75 minutes by train, and then three minutes by taxi or effectively tram (well, heavy rail but on what amounts to a suburban line) to the centre.
As so often, the Romans built their city in the valley, and the Saxons their town on the hill above it.
I had a similar experience myself in London a few weeks ago, after a curry. Was very sudden and I couldn't get to the hotel in time, so was sick over some railings in to some vegetation on a train station platform in a London suburb. I was politely asked by the station staff if I wanted any medical assistance but was then left to it. Not great when it happens.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
Russia officially stated that tonight they "launched a high-precision missile attack on temporary deployment sites of AFU reserve units".
In the video you can take a close look at this "temporary deployment site" from all sides.
Meanwhile, the death toll in Uman has risen to 17.
https://twitter.com/RomanyukYuliya/status/1651920497095917569
Russia must be counting little girls and their mothers as AFU reserve units. Awful.
These people are the victims of the latest russian attack on Dnipro.
The woman’s cousin Tetiana Bilash published this photo.
📷Tetiana Bilash
https://twitter.com/saintjavelin/status/1651961296718376961
What the heck happens then? The government are probably happy enough, but what actually happens?
But I was more thinking of examples like the millions of paid-up members of the Catholic and Evangelical churches in Germany who say they don't believe in God. Even fewer believe in the Devil nowadays, which would once have been seen as heretical.
The River Trent has a lot to answer for...
His thesis is that Jesus was not a pacific prophet, but an active leader of a Jewish resistance movement against the Romans, and that there are references in the Gospels which survived attempts to rewrite him after his death. He's working off a very small evidence base and while I don't think he makes his case fully, I think he makes the case that a case could be made (if you see what I mean).
LAB: 45% (-2)
CON: 28% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (+3)
GRN: 6% (-)
REF: 6% (-1)
via @Omnisis, 27 - 28 Apr
If you look at YouTube videos of great classical renditions they can easily have 10-20m views. Eg:
https://youtu.be/q9rvyvssvuI
So long as the Metropolitan police are responsible for the safety of senior politicians and their families on a daily basis there will be no serious reform of the organisation by said politicians.
4m
NEW: GMB members vote to accept 56%-44% to accept the NHS pay offer.
Royal College of Nursing looking increasingly out on a limb ...
I love careful safety play.
But I also love watching Mark Allen stand utterly motionless, looking baffled, for upwards of three minutes before executing a shot of quiet brilliance that nevertheless advances the game not one iota.
Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’
When the student assembly voted to require faculty to alert students to upsetting educational materials, administrators pushed back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/nyregion/cornell-student-assembly-trigger-warnings.html
They did consider a plan to attack an airbase on the mainland. It was mad as a box of frogs.
It provoked a virtual mutiny in the SAS - a number of NCOs said they wouldn’t do the planned op. So it was called off.
https://www.forces.net/operations/falklands/why-sas-retaliation-raid-nicknamed-operation-certain-death-never-happened
Unison - accept
GMB - accept
Midwives - accept
Physios - accept
Eye specialists - accept
Occupational therapists - accept
RCN - reject (54-46)
Unite - reject (52-48)
Per BBC: "union sources say it is "almost certain" that at a meeting of the NHS Staff Council the deal will be ratified, prompting the government to sanction the 5% pay increase and one-off payment."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65425285
Here's his Liszt performance from the semi-final of the Cliburn last year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsGLmrR0BVs
Most pianists are slightly (or truly) terrified by Feux follets (around 16 and a half minutes in). He's evidently enjoying himself.
He said 52-48…. Snicker snicker…..
@BritainElects
·
26m
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 45% (-2)
CON: 28% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (+3)
GRN: 6% (-)
REF: 6% (-1)
via
@Omnisis
, 27 - 28 Apr"
Overall this is a gain of 1 point for LLG vs RefCon
I've checked on the OS Map an you seem way out: the ground level (not including the bridge) varies from 40ft at the Catholic Church, to about 50ft near Addenbrookes. So 3 or 4 metres instead of 10.
SCOTLAND's public spending auditors have said there remains doubts over the long term future of the taxpayer-owned publicly owned shipyard firm at the centre of the nation's ferry fiasco because of a lack of a business plan.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/23486216.auditors-cast-new-doubt-future-scotgov-owned-ferguson-marine/
I think they've judged this well , deal looks to be ratified shortly
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1651959132910501894?s=20
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
and there is some evidence of a recent acceleration, although it's a bit too early to tell:
https://www.politico.eu/article/un-report-warns-of-accelerating-sea-level-rise-in-a-warming-world/
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Scottish nationalism is similar to British nationalism. It assumes an exceptionalism, with many of it's adherents simply driven by an irrational hatred of "the other lot".
Scottish separatism and Brexitism are two cheeks of the same ugly arse. Pointless philosophies that try to excuse the filthy raison d'etre which is hatred of the foreigner. No, no no, say the apologists, like those who wanted to believe that Russian nationalism was benign.