One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
Why can't Charles just leave things alone? Has he really had this itch to be King all this time so he could do stupid things like this?
The quiche was a bad sign. Making it a veggie quiche - fine if you must, but then putting lard in the pastry, so it was good neither for veggies nor keen carnivores. The fussiness of the recipe, using spinach which can make your quiche soggy - it's all so twiddly and irksome and half-baked, like Charles himself.
Can anyone help me to understand what "Luckyguy1983" is talking about? I'm mildly curious. Maybe I'm guilty of not having kept up with the news enough, but I don't understand the references to quiche or lard, let alone spinach.
Felicity Cloake in the Graun website has an excellent piece on the recipe and how to do it best - basically, it's a recipe a pro chef might design but has its trickinesses for the less experienced.
27 best recipes for the King's coronation here, including caramelised onion and mushroom Toad in the Hole, chocolate and venison pie, pork stroganoff, salmon en croute, garlic and rosemary roast pork loin, marmite roast potatoes, slow roasted lamb with pistachio gremolata and classic roast chicken https://www.delish.com/uk/cooking/recipes/g43707499/kings-coronation-big-lunch/?slide=27
I wonder how much of our problem's are really down to money, actually.
We probably need another £150bn of tax revenue coming in a year, each year, of which £80-90bn needs to go on extra spending on the education, science, R&D, transport, energy, crime & justice, defence and the NHS and about £50bn on reducing income taxes and NI.
No party can get close to that. Unless they can get Britain to grow an insanely fast way, which would need us to develop new technologies and capabilities and retain all the workers & IP (we normally cash out to the Americans inside 18 months).
The basic issue is that too many people are dependent on the state (public sector employees, welfare recipients, pensioners). All of these are a net cost to the exchequer.
In an age of companies negotiating and being willing to move abroad the tax base is simply too small to sustain the costs we have taken on
I think people should basically take responsibility to look after themselves.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
No it is right, according to the ONS census in 2021 (which covers over 90% of the population) 53% of the population of England and Wales are Christian, Muslim or Jewish and only 37% have no religion.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
I've read The Genesis Secret, after that thumbscrews will be a piece of piss.
I haven’t
On the Vogon Poetry Scale, where is it?
This scale.
Too easy.
Talking of inappropriate (or appropriate) settings for books, whilst running through London early one morning recently, I came across the following slightly sacrilegious sight on a bench:
It appears on reading the Quran that they decided to quit alcohol, which is why the bottle of beer hasn’t been finished. This is not sacrilege, but successful proselytising.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
It is not clear that blaming Christianity is especially useful, or any other large group.
You are not in the mood to be helpful or even honest here are you? You know I’m a staunch Christian. But I fairly acknowledge history of Christian countries is horrible treatment of Jews. England probably being one of the worst in history, probably more so than the Germanic countries. Though having said that, the biggest anti Semite of all time being Martin Luther.
There are other and more recent candidates for 'biggest anti Semite of all time'. Luther, despite his disgusting traits in this direction, doesn't make the top 10.
I’m not at all disagreeing with you, you clearly know so much about this whilst all I have is a fascination to know more. However, I’m supposing most those you have in the top 10 ahead of Martin Luther, post date him? Much like these TV adverts post date this film?
Sometimes later things are more widely known, but wouldn’t even be without the original influence. My original point being how anti-semitism is cultural.
Why can't Charles just leave things alone? Has he really had this itch to be King all this time so he could do stupid things like this?
The quiche was a bad sign. Making it a veggie quiche - fine if you must, but then putting lard in the pastry, so it was good neither for veggies nor keen carnivores. The fussiness of the recipe, using spinach which can make your quiche soggy - it's all so twiddly and irksome and half-baked, like Charles himself.
Can anyone help me to understand what "Luckyguy1983" is talking about? I'm mildly curious. Maybe I'm guilty of not having kept up with the news enough, but I don't understand the references to quiche or lard, let alone spinach.
Felicity Cloake in the Graun website has an excellent piece on the recipe and how to do it best - basically, it's a recipe a pro chef might design but has its trickinesses for the less experienced.
Thanks. As a vegetarian, in one sense I find it nice that people are more aware, but as someone who doesn't think that I should be able to dictate what other people eat, I find it not so nice.
As for the "faux pas" of including eggs in a recipe when there is a shortage of eggs, I could almost believe that people are in search of something to be offended by.
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
Perhaps we could persuade Mike to set up two threads on the appointed day, one for loyal brethren like you and I, and the other for the traitors. He could then turn over the IP addresses of the latter to the authorities for suitable punishment.
Should be a knighthood in it for him, at least.
It's a great idea and we could use it the other way too. The IDs of everyone declaiming The Oath to form a blacklist of people not allowed to buy property in North London. And especially not in Hampstead.
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
Perhaps we could persuade Mike to set up two threads on the appointed day, one for loyal brethren like you and I, and the other for the traitors. He could then turn over the IP addresses of the latter to the authorities for suitable punishment.
Should be a knighthood in it for him, at least.
It's a great idea and we could use it the other way too. The IDs of everyone declaiming The Oath to form a blacklist of people not allowed to buy property in North London. And especially not in Hampstead.
Ah Hampstead lovely area shame about some of the people lol
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
I've read The Genesis Secret, after that thumbscrews will be a piece of piss.
I haven’t
On the Vogon Poetry Scale, where is it?
This scale.
Too easy.
Talking of inappropriate (or appropriate) settings for books, whilst running through London early one morning recently, I came across the following slightly sacrilegious sight on a bench:
There is (was?) a bar review website called Beer in the Evening which, in a spectacularly bad example of how web advertising should work, once popped up an ad for MuslimSingles.com when I was looking at it.
"A gun-making far-right extremist who said minorities “should be shot” & “God, I hate Muslims” has been convicted of terrorism offences in the Midlands.
Vaughn Dolphin even managed to blow up his own kitchen while experimenting with explosives.
Why haven't the MSM reported this?"
I saw this story on the BBC and Sky News websites and there’s more I’m sure.
Why can't Charles just leave things alone? Has he really had this itch to be King all this time so he could do stupid things like this?
The quiche was a bad sign. Making it a veggie quiche - fine if you must, but then putting lard in the pastry, so it was good neither for veggies nor keen carnivores. The fussiness of the recipe, using spinach which can make your quiche soggy - it's all so twiddly and irksome and half-baked, like Charles himself.
Can anyone help me to understand what "Luckyguy1983" is talking about? I'm mildly curious. Maybe I'm guilty of not having kept up with the news enough, but I don't understand the references to quiche or lard, let alone spinach.
Felicity Cloake in the Graun website has an excellent piece on the recipe and how to do it best - basically, it's a recipe a pro chef might design but has its trickinesses for the less experienced.
27 best recipes for the King's coronation here, including caramelised onion and mushroom Toad in the Hole, chocolate and venison pie, pork stroganoff, salmon en croute, garlic and rosemary roast pork loin, marmite roast potatoes, slow roasted lamb with pistachio gremolata and classic roast chicken https://www.delish.com/uk/cooking/recipes/g43707499/kings-coronation-big-lunch/?slide=27
Why can't Charles just leave things alone? Has he really had this itch to be King all this time so he could do stupid things like this?
The quiche was a bad sign. Making it a veggie quiche - fine if you must, but then putting lard in the pastry, so it was good neither for veggies nor keen carnivores. The fussiness of the recipe, using spinach which can make your quiche soggy - it's all so twiddly and irksome and half-baked, like Charles himself.
Can anyone help me to understand what "Luckyguy1983" is talking about? I'm mildly curious. Maybe I'm guilty of not having kept up with the news enough, but I don't understand the references to quiche or lard, let alone spinach.
Felicity Cloake in the Graun website has an excellent piece on the recipe and how to do it best - basically, it's a recipe a pro chef might design but has its trickinesses for the less experienced.
27 best recipes for the King's coronation here, including caramelised onion and mushroom Toad in the Hole, chocolate and venison pie, pork stroganoff, salmon en croute, garlic and rosemary roast pork loin, marmite roast potatoes, slow roasted lamb with pistachio gremolata and classic roast chicken https://www.delish.com/uk/cooking/recipes/g43707499/kings-coronation-big-lunch/?slide=27
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
Perhaps we could persuade Mike to set up two threads on the appointed day, one for loyal brethren like you and I, and the other for the traitors. He could then turn over the IP addresses of the latter to the authorities for suitable punishment.
Should be a knighthood in it for him, at least.
It's a great idea and we could use it the other way too. The IDs of everyone declaiming The Oath to form a blacklist of people not allowed to buy property in North London. And especially not in Hampstead.
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
Perhaps we could persuade Mike to set up two threads on the appointed day, one for loyal brethren like you and I, and the other for the traitors. He could then turn over the IP addresses of the latter to the authorities for suitable punishment.
Should be a knighthood in it for him, at least.
It's a great idea and we could use it the other way too. The IDs of everyone declaiming The Oath to form a blacklist of people not allowed to buy property in North London. And especially not in Hampstead.
Ah Hampstead lovely area shame about some of the people lol
We’ve got a local by-election coming up in South Hampstead ward after a Labour cllr quit. The seat used to be Tory, IIRC, so they’re having a go. LibDems also trying hard for a seat that borders LibDem areas of strength in the borough.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
No it is right, according to the ONS census in 2021 (which covers over 90% of the population) 53% of the population of England and Wales are Christian, Muslim or Jewish and only 37% have no religion.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
Obviously the implication of these figures is simply that only about half of those who describe themselves as Christians, Muslims and Jewish actually believe in "a god". Actually, probably well under half, taking other faiths into account.
And away with your nonsense about "less than half don't believe". If you don't know, you don't believe, a fortiori!
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
Oh, quite. And I can rationalise the pledge-to-monarch-as-abstract-embodiment-of-nation. But I'm not sure it's a great look. Makes Britain look a bit daft. Makes Charles look like an entitled ninny. Makes me wonder if whoever designed all this is a secret republican.
Personally, I find all the religious stuff off putting. I raise one quizzical eyebrow at those minded to give oaths to their TV but two at those who get worked up about it or want to make a thing of their dissension. It is a symbol of our unity as a nation and I am in favour of that but the role of the Church is problematic.
Why can't Charles just leave things alone? Has he really had this itch to be King all this time so he could do stupid things like this?
The quiche was a bad sign. Making it a veggie quiche - fine if you must, but then putting lard in the pastry, so it was good neither for veggies nor keen carnivores. The fussiness of the recipe, using spinach which can make your quiche soggy - it's all so twiddly and irksome and half-baked, like Charles himself.
Coronation ceremonies change. William IV didn’t even want one after the vast outlay on his bother’s and at Victoria’s many of the priests hadn’t a clue what was going on. She was told it was all over before having to come back and finish it off. Although one of the Lords tripped over his gown at that one and fell down some steps, receiving rapturous cheering and applause when he got up again.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Let me guess the constituency. Hornsey and Wood Green.
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
I've read The Genesis Secret, after that thumbscrews will be a piece of piss.
I haven’t
On the Vogon Poetry Scale, where is it?
This scale.
Too easy.
Talking of inappropriate (or appropriate) settings for books, whilst running through London early one morning recently, I came across the following slightly sacrilegious sight on a bench:
It appears on reading the Quran that they decided to quit alcohol, which is why the bottle of beer hasn’t been finished. This is not sacrilege, but successful proselytising.
Alternatively, while reading the Quran, someone decided that Islam isn’t for them, and had a beer….
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
Lots of young women, Emma Watson included, for example, believe in astrology - which is no less of a faith.
Thanks. As you imply, why exclude polytheists, astrologers, or whatever non-monotheistic creeds people may wish to subscribe to? Charles himself famously expressed a desire to be the defender of all faiths.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
I've read The Genesis Secret, after that thumbscrews will be a piece of piss.
I haven’t
On the Vogon Poetry Scale, where is it?
This scale.
Too easy.
Talking of inappropriate (or appropriate) settings for books, whilst running through London early one morning recently, I came across the following slightly sacrilegious sight on a bench:
It appears on reading the Quran that they decided to quit alcohol, which is why the bottle of beer hasn’t been finished. This is not sacrilege, but successful proselytising.
Alternatively, while reading the Quran, someone decided that Islam isn’t for them, and had a beer….
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
Personally, I find all the religious stuff off putting. I raise one quizzical eyebrow at those minded to give oaths to their TV but two at those who get worked up about it or want to make a thing of their dissension. It is a symbol of our unity as a nation and I am in favour of that but the role of the Church is problematic.
It's not problematic for me at all.
The King is the Head of the Church of England, and this is fundamentally a Christian religious service. That's where the deity and sense of the metaphysical comes from.
Incidentally, one of my best friends, a proud and observant jew, sent me this service. It doesn't bother him either and he's excited by it too.
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
I've read The Genesis Secret, after that thumbscrews will be a piece of piss.
I haven’t
On the Vogon Poetry Scale, where is it?
This scale.
Too easy.
Talking of inappropriate (or appropriate) settings for books, whilst running through London early one morning recently, I came across the following slightly sacrilegious sight on a bench:
It appears on reading the Quran that they decided to quit alcohol, which is why the bottle of beer hasn’t been finished. This is not sacrilege, but successful proselytising.
Alternatively, while reading the Quran, someone decided that Islam isn’t for them, and had a beer….
But then the beer would’ve been finished!
… then discovered that Corona is a shit beer and went to find something better.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
Lots of young women, Emma Watson included, for example, believe in astrology - which is no less of a faith.
And no less a load of bollocks.
Something that never fails to amuse is -
“Religion is a load of bollocks etc. but faith X is so moving, true, spiritual etc.”
I think it is a little more complicated than that. Tim Minchin put it well:
"I don't go for ancient wisdom I don't believe just 'cos ideas are tenacious it means they are worthy I get freaked out by churches Some of the hymns that they sing have nice chords but the lyrics are dodgy"
Many beautiful things have been created in the name of or been inspired by religion. It is a part of the human condition.
You’re either blindly loyal to His Majesty, or you are a foul traitor, it’s that basic
Only cucks will pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
FACT.
You will be one of the first in a thumbscrew. You’ll blub in 5 seconds and be oathing in 10
I suspect Mrs Big G might be made of sterner stuff. The Scold’s Bridle for her
I've read The Genesis Secret, after that thumbscrews will be a piece of piss.
I haven’t
On the Vogon Poetry Scale, where is it?
This scale.
Too easy.
Talking of inappropriate (or appropriate) settings for books, whilst running through London early one morning recently, I came across the following slightly sacrilegious sight on a bench:
It appears on reading the Quran that they decided to quit alcohol, which is why the bottle of beer hasn’t been finished. This is not sacrilege, but successful proselytising.
Alternatively, while reading the Quran, someone decided that Islam isn’t for them, and had a beer….
But then the beer would’ve been finished!
… then discovered that Corona is a shit beer and went to find something better.
As a good Muslim it is my duty to remind you all that the pandemic was named after an alcoholic drink.
Personally, I find all the religious stuff off putting. I raise one quizzical eyebrow at those minded to give oaths to their TV but two at those who get worked up about it or want to make a thing of their dissension. It is a symbol of our unity as a nation and I am in favour of that but the role of the Church is problematic.
It's not problematic for me at all.
The King is the Head of the Church of England, and this is fundamentally a Christian religious service. That's where the deity and sense of the metaphysical comes from.
Incidentally, one of my best friends, a proud and observant jew, sent me this service. It doesn't bother him either and he's excited by it too.
Well I genuinely hope you get both enjoyment and fulfilment from it.
I suspect that most of us will probably be around for the next one. This is not to wish ill of the King but he is 75 this year so will be doing very well if he matches his mother and lives another 21 years. Hopefully most of us on here have another 21 years in us.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Indeed, it was the Romans. We are supposed to skip over that because Constantine turned the Romans into goodies.
“Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. That Jews killed Jesus” “Indeed, it was the Romans. We are supposed to skip over that because Constantine turned the Romans into goodies”
Obviously I don’t expect much understanding from DecrepitJohn, who like 98% of PB likely not a Christian. But I am very surprised you say this Foxy. I am surprised we are so far apart on the passion 🥺
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
The oath doesn't bother me one way or another. If I were to swear it (I probably won't) then I would be swearing loyalty to the country represented by the King as the figurehead and not to the person themself. I defintely wouldn't swear allegience to a President - a political figure representing one minority political position.
It might be were there a consensus on the issue, but with the current disposition of parties and public opinion, “unprecedented numbers” is likely to result in some very nasty politics.
Note we’re spending about £2 billion a year detaining a relatively small fraction of those numbers, for no good practical reason at all.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
The oath doesn't bother me one way or another. If I were to swear it (I probably won't) then I would be swearing loyalty to the country represented by the King as the figurehead and not to the person themself. I defintely wouldn't swear allegience to a President - a political figure representing one minority political position.
I don’t think ordinary citizens should be swearing oaths of loyalty to heads of state at all, however chosen. Note that services members - and the head of state - in the US swear loyalty to the constitution
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
The oath doesn't bother me one way or another. If I were to swear it (I probably won't) then I would be swearing loyalty to the country represented by the King as the figurehead and not to the person themself. I defintely wouldn't swear allegience to a President - a political figure representing one minority political position.
I don’t think ordinary citizens should be swearing oaths of loyalty to heads of state at all, however chosen. Note that services members - and the head of state - in the US swear loyalty to the constitution
Note the oath is to the King according to law, based in the UK on Crown in Parliament.
Even the Nazis had a written constitution carried over from the Weimar Republic and Hitler as President, it does not guarantee freedom
I don't think I want my toilet paper to be "unbearably gripping"...
@Dura_Ace presumably bought that so he's directly put several pounds in the pocket of SeanT.
Not sure the former has had the last laugh.
OTOH it’s an advert on a quite widely read website that this “ICE TWINS” book - of which I have previously never heard - is “unbearably gripping and suspenseful”
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
The oath doesn't bother me one way or another. If I were to swear it (I probably won't) then I would be swearing loyalty to the country represented by the King as the figurehead and not to the person themself. I defintely wouldn't swear allegience to a President - a political figure representing one minority political position.
I don’t think ordinary citizens should be swearing oaths of loyalty to heads of state at all, however chosen. Note that services members - and the head of state - in the US swear loyalty to the constitution
Note the oath is to the King according to law, based in the UK on Crown in Parliament.
Even the Nazis had a written constitution and Hitler as President, it does not guarantee freedom
At risk of being picky, Hitler was never President of Germany. The office was abolished on Hindenburg's death and Hitler assumed the title 'Fuhrer und Reichskanzler,' which he held until his suicide. It was then recreated for Donitz.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
No it is right, according to the ONS census in 2021 (which covers over 90% of the population) 53% of the population of England and Wales are Christian, Muslim or Jewish and only 37% have no religion.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
Wait a minute wasn't it just a day or two ago you were insisting that those who don't believe in the Trinity aren't Christians at all, and now you want to claim that those who don't believe in God but identify as Christian DO actually count as Christians? Glad we managed to convince you to completely change your mind on this.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
The oath doesn't bother me one way or another. If I were to swear it (I probably won't) then I would be swearing loyalty to the country represented by the King as the figurehead and not to the person themself. I defintely wouldn't swear allegience to a President - a political figure representing one minority political position.
I don’t think ordinary citizens should be swearing oaths of loyalty to heads of state at all, however chosen. Note that services members - and the head of state - in the US swear loyalty to the constitution
Note the oath is to the King according to law, based in the UK on Crown in Parliament.
Even the Nazis had a written constitution and Hitler as President, it does not guarantee freedom
At risk of being picky, Hitler was never President of Germany. The office was abolished on Hindenburg's death and Hitler assumed the title 'Fuhrer und Reichskanzler,' which he held until his suicide. It was then recreated for Donitz.
The Fuhrer merged the powers of President and Chancellor in Hitler in the Nazi Republic
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
No it is right, according to the ONS census in 2021 (which covers over 90% of the population) 53% of the population of England and Wales are Christian, Muslim or Jewish and only 37% have no religion.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
Wait a minute wasn't it just a day or two ago you were insisting that those who don't believe in the Trinity aren't Christians at all, and now you want to claim that those who don't believe in God but identify as Christian DO actually count as Christians? Glad we managed to convince you to completely change your mind on this.
We are talking in belief in the God of Abraham, which adds Muslims and Jews. The Trinity is a Christian only concept
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
The oath doesn't bother me one way or another. If I were to swear it (I probably won't) then I would be swearing loyalty to the country represented by the King as the figurehead and not to the person themself. I defintely wouldn't swear allegience to a President - a political figure representing one minority political position.
I don’t think ordinary citizens should be swearing oaths of loyalty to heads of state at all, however chosen. Note that services members - and the head of state - in the US swear loyalty to the constitution
Note the oath is to the King according to law, based in the UK on Crown in Parliament.
Even the Nazis had a written constitution and Hitler as President, it does not guarantee freedom
At risk of being picky, Hitler was never President of Germany. The office was abolished on Hindenburg's death and Hitler assumed the title 'Fuhrer und Reichskanzler,' which he held until his suicide. It was then recreated for Donitz.
The Fuhrer merged the powers of President and Chancellor in Hitler in the Nazi Republic
I don't think I want my toilet paper to be "unbearably gripping"...
@Dura_Ace presumably bought that so he's directly put several pounds in the pocket of SeanT.
Not sure the former has had the last laugh.
OTOH it’s an advert on a quite widely read website that this “ICE TWINS” book - of which I have previously never heard - is “unbearably gripping and suspenseful”
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
No it is right, according to the ONS census in 2021 (which covers over 90% of the population) 53% of the population of England and Wales are Christian, Muslim or Jewish and only 37% have no religion.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
Wait a minute wasn't it just a day or two ago you were insisting that those who don't believe in the Trinity aren't Christians at all, and now you want to claim that those who don't believe in God but identify as Christian DO actually count as Christians? Glad we managed to convince you to completely change your mind on this.
We are talking in belief in the God of Abraham, which adds Muslims and Jews. The Trinity is a Christian only concept
But you are now counting all the people who say they are Christians, no matter whether they believe in the Trinity or not?
I really sometimes wonder whether you understand a lot of what's being said to you, or even what you are saying yourself.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
I support a system that works. The US has a written constitution which is at the root of much of the evil that is perpetrated in US politics today. The UK has had one of the most stable political systems in the first world for the last two centuries largely because of the 1689 settlement. We avoided revolution in the Year of Revolutions of 1848 and have withstood the political upheavals that have wracked much of Europe in the 20th century. No system is perfect but I will take ours over anyone else's any day thankyou.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
The people’s oath nonsense does raise an interesting point, though.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly. I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution. I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
The oath doesn't bother me one way or another. If I were to swear it (I probably won't) then I would be swearing loyalty to the country represented by the King as the figurehead and not to the person themself. I defintely wouldn't swear allegience to a President - a political figure representing one minority political position.
I don’t think ordinary citizens should be swearing oaths of loyalty to heads of state at all, however chosen. Note that services members - and the head of state - in the US swear loyalty to the constitution
Note the oath is to the King according to law, based in the UK on Crown in Parliament.
Even the Nazis had a written constitution carried over from the Weimar Republic and Hitler as President, it does not guarantee freedom
This is the text: "I swear that I will pay true allegiance to your majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God"
"According to law" refers to the selection of his successors. Or there would be another comma in that sentence.
Either it's meaningless, performative nonsense, or it's offensive. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and opt to think the former.
Always an experience to spend time with people outside one's regular cliques. Been in a group with lots of discussion of the excellent medium several saw last night, about the alien footage that is everywhere but the government wont admit it, how Starmer and Rishi should kill each other, and how several wont be getting more vaccines as since that chap took over twitter people can say what they like and medical people say it's bad.
Always an experience to spend time with people outside one's regular cliques. Been in a group with lots of discussion of the excellent medium several saw last night, about the alien footage that is everywhere but the government wont admit it, how Starmer and Rishi should kill each other, and how several wont be getting more vaccines as since that chap took over twitter people can say what they like and medical people say it's bad.
I chimed in infrequently.
Must have been nice for you to meet Leon in person.
Always an experience to spend time with people outside one's regular cliques. Been in a group with lots of discussion of the excellent medium several saw last night, about the alien footage that is everywhere but the government wont admit it, how Starmer and Rishi should kill each other, and how several wont be getting more vaccines as since that chap took over twitter people can say what they like and medical people say it's bad.
I chimed in infrequently.
Must have been nice for you to meet Leon in person.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
No it is right, according to the ONS census in 2021 (which covers over 90% of the population) 53% of the population of England and Wales are Christian, Muslim or Jewish and only 37% have no religion.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
Wait a minute wasn't it just a day or two ago you were insisting that those who don't believe in the Trinity aren't Christians at all, and now you want to claim that those who don't believe in God but identify as Christian DO actually count as Christians? Glad we managed to convince you to completely change your mind on this.
As my dear old granny used to say: now is not the time for logic.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Reminds me of the sad/funny/true Things Get Only Get Better by John O'Farrell. If GE24 goes pear (pls no!) I might write the bleaker sequel to it.
Tangled Up In Blue - why can't England kick its ruinous tory habit?
I quite liked TCOGB by JOF. There was quite a lot of self-awareness in it, combined with quite a lot of suprising lack of self-awareness. One bit of self-awareness came in the description of the 1987 general election when JOF marvels that 'the electorate still hated us almost as much'. Which made a (brief) change from 'why don't the electorate hate the Tories as much as we do?'.
There is very little love for the Tories from the electorate, and almost never has been. The reason England can't kick its Tory habit is because England perceives the alternative as worse. That may or may not change in 2024.
Anyway. I've just overheard my (centrist, weathervane, broadly pro-monarchy) wife on the phone to her sister, marvelling at the audacity of Charles expecting a pledge of allegiance, which concluded with a spirited 'go screw yourself, Charlie Boy.'
Oh for goodness sake, the King won't put you in the Tower of London if you don't make the pledge of allegiance but all new British citizens have to swear allegiance to the sovereign, so why not have a voluntary pledge of allegiance for the public during the coronation service?
You ask why not. The question I would ask, is why "So help me God" is included in that oath. If you want to give people the opportunity of pledging allegiance, why not make it as inclusive as possible? If people need to give evidence in court and don't believe in God, they can affirm. Ditto for MPs. So why does God have to be involved in this?
I think it's pointless to ask the question of you, because your ideas about religion - and specifically about the place of religion in society, particularly with reference to people who don't share your faith - are so bizarre that it's futile to expect a reasonable or comprehensible response. But I think the question is worth asking (even at the risk of someone describing me as a "wanker" again, for asking it).
One specific point of interest is whether our current prime minister will be able to take that oath in good conscience. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu. I don't know anything more specific about his theological beliefs, but Hinduism is not generally a monotheistic religion. As far as I know, he may be a monotheist, or he may not. But if he is not, why exclude him? Or more to the point, why exclude those who are not, whether he is, or whether he isn't? Why exclude those who aren't believers in any God or gods?
As it is a voluntary oath and the majority of the British population ie Christians, Muslims and Jews still believe in the one God of Abraham
Well, in one sense I'm glad that you implicitly admit this will exclude those of other faiths, and of none
No it is right, according to the ONS census in 2021 (which covers over 90% of the population) 53% of the population of England and Wales are Christian, Muslim or Jewish and only 37% have no religion.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
Wait a minute wasn't it just a day or two ago you were insisting that those who don't believe in the Trinity aren't Christians at all, and now you want to claim that those who don't believe in God but identify as Christian DO actually count as Christians? Glad we managed to convince you to completely change your mind on this.
We are talking in belief in the God of Abraham, which adds Muslims and Jews. The Trinity is a Christian only concept
Yes. But are people who say they are Christians but don't believe in God, let alone the Trinity, really Christians? I argued yes the other day, you seem to have changed your mind.
Always an experience to spend time with people outside one's regular cliques. Been in a group with lots of discussion of the excellent medium several saw last night, about the alien footage that is everywhere but the government wont admit it, how Starmer and Rishi should kill each other, and how several wont be getting more vaccines as since that chap took over twitter people can say what they like and medical people say it's bad.
Yes but legal migration is fine even if its 1 million a year acvording to most people. Its those 50000 coming over on small boats that is the problem.
It is also yet another demonstration that the "assumptions" that are built into economic models which "prove" that Brexit is going to reduce our economic performance are completely unjustified in the real world. The UK may under or over perform but it is down to us and our economic policies and decisions, not completely contrived restraints on our growth which don't exist.
For you it is Richard and that is to your credit imo.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
Do you honestly think that net migration of 700,000 a year - or more - year after year - is hunky dory? No problemo? You don’t ever look at, say, Sweden and think “Ooops”?
For you it is Richard and that is to your credit imo.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
Do you honestly think that net migration of 700,000 a year - or more - year after year - is hunky dory? No problemo? You don’t ever look at, say, Sweden and think “Ooops”?
It’s simply insane
It is probably doable as long as they are all high earners that pay in a lot more in tax than they take in services. That net contribution can pay for all the upgrades in housing capacity and transport networks. It would also mean they are likely good English speakers that don't overwhelm our schools with TEFL requirements.
The problem is that we are still bringing over student dependents, arranged brides and workers on 26k a year at huge volumes.
Always an experience to spend time with people outside one's regular cliques. Been in a group with lots of discussion of the excellent medium several saw last night, about the alien footage that is everywhere but the government wont admit it, how Starmer and Rishi should kill each other, and how several wont be getting more vaccines as since that chap took over twitter people can say what they like and medical people say it's bad.
I chimed in infrequently.
Always good to widen your perspectives by talking to different people.
Absolutely. None of them found my electoral anecdotes interesting though. Strange.
Always an experience to spend time with people outside one's regular cliques. Been in a group with lots of discussion of the excellent medium several saw last night, about the alien footage that is everywhere but the government wont admit it, how Starmer and Rishi should kill each other, and how several wont be getting more vaccines as since that chap took over twitter people can say what they like and medical people say it's bad.
I suspect that most of us will probably be around for the next one. This is not to wish ill of the King but he is 75 this year so will be doing very well if he matches his mother and lives another 21 years. Hopefully most of us on here have another 21 years in us.
And yet we are asked to swear "May the King live for ever!" To question his immortality is bordering on treachery.
For you it is Richard and that is to your credit imo.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
Do you honestly think that net migration of 700,000 a year - or more - year after year - is hunky dory? No problemo? You don’t ever look at, say, Sweden and think “Ooops”?
It’s simply insane
What I think is that if we are really sucking in anything like 700k to fill the gaps in our labour markets then our economy is doing better than the official statistics are showing. Anything like that number suggests that the UK jobs machine is back at near full throttle.
And the answer to your more precise question is that it depends upon what the net figures are and who they are. If we are losing lots of doctors to Australasia but filling gaps in our care sector that is not going to do a lot for our average productivity.
For you it is Richard and that is to your credit imo.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
Do you honestly think that net migration of 700,000 a year - or more - year after year - is hunky dory? No problemo? You don’t ever look at, say, Sweden and think “Ooops”?
It’s simply insane
What I think is that if we are really sucking in anything like 700k to fill the gaps in our labour markets then our economy is doing better than the official statistics are showing. Anything like that number suggests that the UK jobs machine is back at near full throttle.
And the answer to your more precise question is that it depends upon what the net figures are and who they are. If we are losing lots of doctors to Australasia but filling gaps in our care sector that is not going to do a lot for our average productivity.
Your last paragraph gets to the heart of the issue. We have very little idea of who the new arrivals are. If you go through migration data, it is nearly impossible to figure out nationalities by visa route. It is definitely impossible to figure the skill and income categories by visa route.
I’d also be interested in seeing the polling data that shows the Brits are AOK with net migration of ONE MILLION PEOPLE a year
I don’t believe it exists, it’s a load of bollocks. Poll after poll shows that Brits want minimal or even zero net migration. They can see the pressure on the NHS, they can see the shit in our rivers as our system struggles to cope with a population gone from around 58m to 68m in 25 years, largely through immigration
1m a year means we go from 68 to 78 million in another decade, possibly overtaking Germany as the most populous European country with less than half the land. We will have to build 1m homes a year, which we can never do, where do they all go? Do we have any countryside left?
PBers do talk an awful lot of virtue signaling shite on this subject. 1m a year, yeah, no biggie
For you it is Richard and that is to your credit imo.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
Do you honestly think that net migration of 700,000 a year - or more - year after year - is hunky dory? No problemo? You don’t ever look at, say, Sweden and think “Ooops”?
It’s simply insane
What I think is that if we are really sucking in anything like 700k to fill the gaps in our labour markets then our economy is doing better than the official statistics are showing. Anything like that number suggests that the UK jobs machine is back at near full throttle.
And the answer to your more precise question is that it depends upon what the net figures are and who they are. If we are losing lots of doctors to Australasia but filling gaps in our care sector that is not going to do a lot for our average productivity.
Your last paragraph gets to the heart of the issue. We have very little idea of who the new arrivals are. If you go through migration data, it is nearly impossible to figure out nationalities by visa route. It is definitely impossible to figure the skill and income categories by visa route.
And we should be paying close attention to this. We want skills and to fill gaps in our job market. During FoM we simply ignored the hundreds of thousands coming here and made no attempt to work out if we were gaining IT specialists or beggars from Rumania but there is no excuse for this lack of attention to detail now. We were supposed to be taking back control but once again the Home Office and Border Force are simply not up to the task.
I’d also be interested in seeing the polling data that shows the Brits are AOK with net migration of ONE MILLION PEOPLE a year
I don’t believe it exists, it’s a load of bollocks. Poll after poll shows that Brits want minimal or even zero net migration. They can see the pressure on the NHS, they can see the shit in our rivers as our system struggles to cope with a population gone from around 58m to 68m in 25 years, largely through immigration
1m a year means we go from 68 to 78 million in another decade, possibly overtaking Germany as the most populous European country with less than half the land. We will have to build 1m homes a year, which we can never do, where do they all go? Do we have any countryside left?
PBers do talk an awful lot of virtue signaling shite on this subject. 1m a year, yeah, no biggie
It should be self limiting though. If we are creating the jobs, attracting the investment and generating wealth that is fine but if we are not the numbers should fall off very sharply. Right now there are almost record vacancies so it makes sense to have record immigration. It won't always be the case. But we need to get a grip and make sure that supply and demand match up to some extent. Otherwise we are storing up trouble for ourselves.
For you it is Richard and that is to your credit imo.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
Do you honestly think that net migration of 700,000 a year - or more - year after year - is hunky dory? No problemo? You don’t ever look at, say, Sweden and think “Ooops”?
It’s simply insane
What I think is that if we are really sucking in anything like 700k to fill the gaps in our labour markets then our economy is doing better than the official statistics are showing. Anything like that number suggests that the UK jobs machine is back at near full throttle.
And the answer to your more precise question is that it depends upon what the net figures are and who they are. If we are losing lots of doctors to Australasia but filling gaps in our care sector that is not going to do a lot for our average productivity.
Your last paragraph gets to the heart of the issue. We have very little idea of who the new arrivals are. If you go through migration data, it is nearly impossible to figure out nationalities by visa route. It is definitely impossible to figure the skill and income categories by visa route.
And we should be paying close attention to this. We want skills and to fill gaps in our job market. During FoM we simply ignored the hundreds of thousands coming here and made no attempt to work out if we were gaining IT specialists or beggars from Rumania but there is no excuse for this lack of attention to detail now. We were supposed to be taking back control but once again the Home Office and Border Force are simply not up to the task.
We have a literal open border. Yet the Tories think the winning move is to do nothing to close it whilst saying that Labour want an open border.
For you it is Richard and that is to your credit imo.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
Do you honestly think that net migration of 700,000 a year - or more - year after year - is hunky dory? No problemo? You don’t ever look at, say, Sweden and think “Ooops”?
It’s simply insane
What I think is that if we are really sucking in anything like 700k to fill the gaps in our labour markets then our economy is doing better than the official statistics are showing. Anything like that number suggests that the UK jobs machine is back at near full throttle.
And the answer to your more precise question is that it depends upon what the net figures are and who they are. If we are losing lots of doctors to Australasia but filling gaps in our care sector that is not going to do a lot for our average productivity.
Isn't a fair chunk of it student bounce-back after Covid?
I’d also be interested in seeing the polling data that shows the Brits are AOK with net migration of ONE MILLION PEOPLE a year
I don’t believe it exists, it’s a load of bollocks. Poll after poll shows that Brits want minimal or even zero net migration. They can see the pressure on the NHS, they can see the shit in our rivers as our system struggles to cope with a population gone from around 58m to 68m in 25 years, largely through immigration
1m a year means we go from 68 to 78 million in another decade, possibly overtaking Germany as the most populous European country with less than half the land. We will have to build 1m homes a year, which we can never do, where do they all go? Do we have any countryside left?
PBers do talk an awful lot of virtue signaling shite on this subject. 1m a year, yeah, no biggie
The polls might show that but underneath the brits really arent that bothered. They like to spout on this subject but it aint serious. If it was far right parties would be rising which aint happening.
That vote for Brexit clearly escaped your attention, then
Comments
But your claim that a majority believe in "one God" is simply false. According to a recent YouGov survey, the percentage who believe in "a god" is just 27%:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2020/12/29/how-religious-are-british-people
https://www.delish.com/uk/cooking/recipes/g43707499/kings-coronation-big-lunch/?slide=27
Some might consider that selfish.
I consider it the precise opposite.
Lots of young women, Emma Watson included, for example, believe in astrology - which is no less of a faith.
Even on your poll less than half don't believe in God or a spiritual power
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021
Well fuck that.
Asking on behalf of JRM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYp_YGwE5gI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEZ3VAF3Bo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEIfplmJ0J4
Sometimes later things are more widely known, but wouldn’t even be without the original influence. My original point being how anti-semitism is cultural.
As for the "faux pas" of including eggs in a recipe when there is a shortage of eggs, I could almost believe that people are in search of something to be offended by.
Approximately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampstead_and_Kilburn_(UK_Parliament_constituency).
Hampstead Town still has a Tory councillor (the other seat LD), one of only 3 Tory councillors on Camden council
https://democracy.camden.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=PARTY&VW=LIST&PIC=0
It’s a fine distinction.
I challenge anyone not to be moved by this, whatever your view.
This is going to be the show of a lifetime - and might be your only chance to see one:
https://www.churchofengland.org/coronation/liturgy
And away with your nonsense about "less than half don't believe". If you don't know, you don't believe, a fortiori!
And I can rationalise the pledge-to-monarch-as-abstract-embodiment-of-nation.
But I'm not sure it's a great look. Makes Britain look a bit daft. Makes Charles look like an entitled ninny.
Makes me wonder if whoever designed all this is a secret republican.
Like I said. The whining of sad republican loons serves only as comedy value and should never be taken seriously.
“Religion is a load of bollocks etc. but faith X is so moving, true, spiritual etc.”
The King is the Head of the Church of England, and this is fundamentally a Christian religious service. That's where the deity and sense of the metaphysical comes from.
Incidentally, one of my best friends, a proud and observant jew, sent me this service. It doesn't bother him either and he's excited by it too.
"I don't go for ancient wisdom
I don't believe just 'cos ideas are tenacious it means they are worthy
I get freaked out by churches
Some of the hymns that they sing have nice chords but the lyrics are dodgy"
Many beautiful things have been created in the name of or been inspired by religion. It is a part of the human condition.
Coincidence? I think not.
Lucky people haven't died there.
“Indeed, it was the Romans. We are supposed to skip over that because Constantine turned the Romans into goodies”
Obviously I don’t expect much understanding from DecrepitJohn, who like 98% of PB likely not a Christian. But I am very surprised you say this Foxy. I am surprised we are so far apart on the passion 🥺
https://twitter.com/SkySportsF1/status/1652653955627855874
Not sure the former has had the last laugh.
Given Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy, should it so decide, and ultimately the composition of Parliament lies with the electorate, it’s a piece of performative nonsense without real meaning. Or it’s presenting people with a choice that it would be sensible for monarchists to avoid.
Personally, I don’t greatly care, and would be happy to let the current constitutional settlement evolve slowly.
I wouldn’t want, let alone agitate for a referendum on the issue, but if there were one, neither would I vote to preserve the institution.
I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
Btw it’s a photoshop, old yin.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britains-legal-migration-numbers-matter-more-than-small-boats-cztbsdhbv
Note we’re spending about £2 billion a year detaining a relatively small fraction of those numbers, for no good practical reason at all.
Rishi Sunak doesn't...
Note that services members - and the head of state - in the US swear loyalty to the constitution
Even the Nazis had a written constitution carried over from the Weimar Republic and Hitler as President, it does not guarantee freedom
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/04/azerbaijan-post-race-2023.html
I may have to get a copy
I really sometimes wonder whether you understand a lot of what's being said to you, or even what you are saying yourself.
"I swear that I will pay true allegiance to your majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God"
"According to law" refers to the selection of his successors. Or there would be another comma in that sentence.
Either it's meaningless, performative nonsense, or it's offensive.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and opt to think the former.
He became a Voodoo Pole!
(I thank you!)
I chimed in infrequently.
Problem is the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists you teamed up with won't be so thrilled.
One that Labour are even less well equipped to cope with than the pathetic Tories
It’s simply insane
The problem is that we are still bringing over student dependents, arranged brides and workers on 26k a year at huge volumes.
To question his immortality is bordering on treachery.
And the answer to your more precise question is that it depends upon what the net figures are and who they are. If we are losing lots of doctors to Australasia but filling gaps in our care sector that is not going to do a lot for our average productivity.
I don’t believe it exists, it’s a load of bollocks. Poll after poll shows that Brits want minimal or even zero net migration. They can see the pressure on the NHS, they can see the shit in our rivers as our system struggles to cope with a population gone from around 58m to 68m in 25 years, largely through immigration
1m a year means we go from 68 to 78 million in another decade, possibly overtaking Germany as the most populous European country with less than half the land. We will have to build 1m homes a year, which we can never do, where do they all go? Do we have any countryside left?
PBers do talk an awful lot of virtue signaling shite on this subject. 1m a year, yeah, no biggie