‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Seems to me if anything he has treated him too well to date. And he has offered him an alternative. I thought you were always moaning about parasites and yet now when it suits your political views you claim he is some sort of victim.
Some consistency please.
Perhaps TSE can offer to host Andrew at his plush pad? I am sure they would get along famously! He might even bring Fergie along too!
I'd have thought Leon would get on well with Andrew. Aren't Eugenie and her Tequila salesman husband living in Frogmore? And Harry stays there when he pays a flying visit to this country for one of his court appearances. It could get crowded.
I think Andrew would be shocked by some of the things that undoubtedly go on in that vale of iniquity.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
Yes correct - looked at the biggest two regions then for any provinces with a fair chunk counted. Are there any experts on here on Turkish geography? So is Istanbul province all urban? If so might have expected a bit more vote change v 2018 even with a small % counted, although ofc even if all urban we don't know what's in.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
It doesn't in law, because the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil trials.
For example, Harold Loughans was acquitted of murdering Rose Robinson in Portsmouth in 1943. In 1961 Loughans sued Odhams Press because he claimed the memoirs of the prosecuting counsel, J. J. Casswell, implied he was guilty. But the jury found the implication was justified on the balance of probabilities.
And most of those I originally mentioned have not had a civil verdict against them either
Nobody said any of them did.
What you claimed was that an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically made an accusation of guilt false.
Of course it doesn't. Get someone to explain it if you really don't understand, but don't try to obfuscate. People aren't as stupid as you think.
More precisely, he was saying the accusation was false. The accusation isn't of guilt, it's that someone did something specific ...
Well, Harold Loughans was indeed guilty of murder, because he confessed publicly after losing his libel case!
The court's verdict was "not guilty", but that didn't mean he wasn't in fact guilty of murder.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Yes but network effects lead to monopolies which are generally held to be a bad thing.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
Huge enough to make a difference to the outcome?
Well one of them - “CHP” has KK in the lead. I have no idea how all this works but I’d certainly be staying clear of the betting markets.
» show previous quotes I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
David, what are your thoughts on getting rid of juries and Not Proven. Seems to me just more meddling by SNP nutjobs.
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
Yes correct - looked at the biggest two regions then for any provinces with a fair chunk counted. Are there any experts on here on Turkish geography? So is Istanbul province all urban? If so might have expected a bit more vote change v 2018 even with a small % counted, although ofc even if all urban we don't know what's in.
Not an expert, and haven't looked very closely, but certainly might be close enough to need a second round, despite it being a 2 horse race. I think Erdoğan will lose, though.
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
Huge enough to make a difference to the outcome?
Well one of them - “CHP” has KK in the lead. I have no idea how all this works but I’d certainly be staying clear of the betting markets.
The rumours around President Big Hat of Belarus' health status continue to grow.
This much can be said with a degree of confidence in the last lot of days: 1. He is unwell and the public signs are there. 2. Someone on a private jet used for Russian government business has turned up in Minsk yesterday, that is not a common visitor 3. He has visited hospital
After that its speculation of anything between he is dead already to he will be back wearing his big Field Marshal hat in a week or so after some treatment. It is worth watching though as some things add up and some don't.
Meanwhile the Russians have lost 4, possibly 5, military aircraft over their own border territory in the last 48 hours, the worst loss in such a short time of airborne aircraft since the war started. No one, it appears, has an explanation other than one was definitely downed by a missile.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
You wanted him extradited, now you want the Chat With A Paedo Charity set up to give him a job. Some “nuance”
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
Huge enough to make a difference to the outcome?
Well one of them - “CHP” has KK in the lead. I have no idea how all this works but I’d certainly be staying clear of the betting markets.
CHP is KK's party ...
That would make sense. The other is AA, which seems to be government aligned.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Governments need to wake up to the problem of richer and richer billionaires dominating our economy, our speech and our elections. We are now at gilded age levels of inequality and if you project forward the trends, individual billionaires will be more powerful than major governments in 50 to 100 years time. When you combine that with inheritance, we will eventually end up with an economy where meritocracy ends as money, power and success depends more on being in the proximity various family dynasies and their corporations than merit, intelligence or work ethic.
Neo-feudalism.
Which brings us back to the topic at hand.
Aside from conflating requests for censorship with laws, what we have here are people complaining that a company is obeying local laws. Rather than violating them.
Many of the same people back the EU requirements for monitoring, editing and blocking on social media.
Ah, but the morality of Turkey vs EU - true.
But do we want a world where companies or owners of companies decide which countries laws are a bit shitty and which aren’t?
The company is doing what all companies do and interpreting the legal position. In the past they have interpreted the requests for censorship as being outside the law, suffered a short term hit until it can be properly adjudicated, and then been able to continue. That is the moral position to take.
Musk, who I admire in many other ways in spite of his flaws, has decided to ignore the past experiences with Turkey and has agreed to self imposed censorship. This is stupid in two ways.
1. It makes a mockery of his claims about free speech. 2. It ignores the previous history and legal precendent in Turkey where such attempts to mute Twitter have been declared illegal.
It is a stupid decision and one I hope he will come to regret.
On turkish politics, Erdogan is a thug and something of an autocrat - but he ain’t no Putin
Tho one wonders if he will voluntarily relinquish power if he loses this election
There have been a few in that position in recent years. Populists with authoritarian tendencies, who definitely do things to suppress opposition but you’re never sure if they’d go the whole hog and fix an election.
Bolsonaro, Trump, Orban, Sakashvili (he walked, but may be regretting that now), Modi.
The ANC have yet to be tested on this and probably won’t be for a long time. Netanyahu hasn’t done in the past but times have changed.
I’m in no doubt Trump would have become a dictator if he came to power in a less established democracy.
Erdogan is an enigma. He has definitely improved the lives of many ordinary Turks. Especially the rural poor. I know sane educated Turks who adore him
He’s also a very canny operator on the foreign policy stage. He’s turned Turkey into a major regional player. A country that cannot be ignored. A country Putin is forced to please - if he can
At the same time he is a bit of a demagogue with a dash of islamism, and he’s mismanaged the economy of late
I don’t like him but a lot of Turks genuinely do - it’s not all propaganda. And Turkey does not feel like a police state, nor is it dangerous or desperate in Turkish cities
Hmmm
86% inflation , the clown could not run a bath. Turks nmust be totally stupid
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
Huge enough to make a difference to the outcome?
Well one of them - “CHP” has KK in the lead. I have no idea how all this works but I’d certainly be staying clear of the betting markets.
I've budgeted £80 of my Biden profit (greened) to play with this.
Feels like it's a 60:40 race to me, not a slam dunk for KK, so on that basis have nibbled Erdogan at above 3s.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
I have read that it's been suggested to Andrew that he follows the example of John Profumo, who after being involved in a sex scandal, worked for a charity in the East End for decades but Andrew isn't interested in charity work.
Istanbul and Ankara Mayors İmamoğlu and Yavaş are making an announcement right now. They are accusing @anadoluajansi of manipulating the numbers they are reporting
"Their credibility is under 0%." "Don't pay attention to their data."
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Well that's the point. People aren't making a free choice of the service provider, they're "choosing" the service that people they know are already using.
This then means that, if the service provider years them badly, they will find out harder to leave, because they'd have to convince all of their friends, family and colleagues to do the same. This creates a power imbalance between the company and the customer - and consequently it is appropriate to use regulation to redress this balance.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
I have read that it's been suggested to Andrew that he follows the example of John Profumo, who after being involved in a sex scandal, worked for a charity in the East End for decades but Andrew isn't interested in charity work.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Interesting take from a Russian volunteer in Bakhmut. Ukrainians have no ammunition issues - nor lack of drones. If they meet resistance, they pull back, smash up the area for a while, then have another go. The contrast with the Russian approach to taking the place is stark.
Not long ago, the reverse was being said about the Russians.
I can’t find the link, but there was a brilliant presentation by a US marine - a Colonel, I think - back in the 90s. He demonstrated that precision weapons were cheaper. You won just on the cost of rounds actually fired. But then, for artillery, it was cheaper in terms of logistics, barrel replacement, and so on.
A million dumb rounds sounds good, but are out performed by a few thousand smart rounds.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Well that's the point. People aren't making a free choice of the service provider, they're "choosing" the service that people they know are already using.
This then means that, if the service provider years them badly, they will find out harder to leave, because they'd have to convince all of their friends, family and colleagues to do the same. This creates a power imbalance between the company and the customer - and consequently it is appropriate to use regulation to redress this balance.
How? What regulation are you going to use to make people - the customers - do something they don't want to do. Are you going to force them to choose another service against their will? If your complaint is that too many people like one particular service then I don't see how you change that. Fragmenting the service and making it more difficult for people to interact with each other simply destroys the whole point of 'social' media.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Well that's the point. People aren't making a free choice of the service provider, they're "choosing" the service that people they know are already using.
This then means that, if the service provider years them badly, they will find out harder to leave, because they'd have to convince all of their friends, family and colleagues to do the same. This creates a power imbalance between the company and the customer - and consequently it is appropriate to use regulation to redress this balance.
How? What regulation are you going to use to make people - the customers - do something they don't want to do. Are you going to force them to choose another service against their will? If your complaint is that too many people like one particular service then I don't see how you change that. Fragmenting the service and making it more difficult for people to interact with each other simply destroys the whole point of 'social' media.
It is possible to come up with a model of social media where it’s a protocol - see the old USENET or email - rather than a specific company/proprietary technology.
Poor Tories. There's no violin in the world small enough...
The Conservative party has found itself at a crossroads on housebuilding, and whichever way they turn they risk alienating voters.
Does the party of homeownership stay faithful to its loyal base who bought in a very different economic climate and don't very much want development in their back yards? Or do they persuade younger voters locked out of the property market that they can build more properties before they vote for someone else they think will enable them to buy a house?
The latter is viewed by many, including a number of leading Tory MPs, to be the key to unlocking electoral success when the government next goes to the polls. The price, however, could be the support of the former.
For the 13 years the Conservatives have been in power, the party has written proposals and put forward white papers to shake up the country’s planning system. But during this period the parliamentary party has been divided between its pro-building arm and traditional anti-development faction.
A new clash between the two groups has emerged since the local elections last week, after one senior Tory partly blamed an increase in housebuilding on Conservative losses, while pro-planning Tories continue their desperate plea for more houses.
I see that there is a lot of discussion at the moment regarding the findings of 'civil' court cases as proof of guilt. But this is a bad path to be going on.
For instance, see this guardian article from 2006 about a murder of a child in Newcastle, in 1993. The suspect in the trial was acquitted in court on the direction of the judge due to problems with the police interviews where the suspect admitted the murder.
"George Heron, then 24, lived on the same estate, having moved in only weeks earlier with his sister. At first Heron denied knowing Nikki, but he admitted he did after witnesses came forward to say they had seen him with her on several occasions. There was other evidence. The blade of a knife recovered from his lodgings matched the stab wounds. Blood splatters were found on Heron's shoe and other clothing. His sister told police that on returning home on the night of Nikki's murder, Heron had gone straight to the bathroom where, uncharacteristically, he spent "a good half hour" washing both himself and his clothes. Although Heron had at first denied going out that evening, four separate witnesses saw a man at the Boar's Head and Clarendon public houses fitting his description. The man was seen buying cheese-and-onion crisps - Nikki's favourite - which police believed the killer used to lure Nikki into the building where she died".
Then the bereaved mother pursued a civil case against the acquitted suspect:
"In 1994 Sharon took out a civil action against Heron, suing him for damages for "battery of a child resulting in her death". Heron did not contest the case which Sharon won. The court awarded her £7,000, but she has never received any money. "I had to do something," she says. "After the trial the police never apologised or explained what went wrong. I felt abandoned."
It all sounds as though the case has been proved and the perpetrator has been let off on a technicality due to police failings. The mother would not let the situation go however and kept on at the police to keep investigating the case through reassessing the forensic evidence.
They did this, but eventually found that Heron was not the killer - it was a different person completely - who has just been tried and found guilty of the murder.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Well that's the point. People aren't making a free choice of the service provider, they're "choosing" the service that people they know are already using.
This then means that, if the service provider years them badly, they will find out harder to leave, because they'd have to convince all of their friends, family and colleagues to do the same. This creates a power imbalance between the company and the customer - and consequently it is appropriate to use regulation to redress this balance.
How? What regulation are you going to use to make people - the customers - do something they don't want to do. Are you going to force them to choose another service against their will? If your complaint is that too many people like one particular service then I don't see how you change that. Fragmenting the service and making it more difficult for people to interact with each other simply destroys the whole point of 'social' media.
It's clear that I have not been clear in explaining my position because your counterarguments appear to be directed against an argument I am not making, so best that we leave it there for now.
France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.
Still want to rejoin the EU?
For Germany, it'll be because of the laws on Nazi content, and on denying the holocaust. It isn't a great surprise that they'll have issued a lot of takedown of that kind of content.
France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.
Still want to rejoin the EU?
For Germany, it'll be because of the laws on Nazi content, and on denying the holocaust. It isn't a great surprise that they'll have issued a lot of takedown of that kind of content.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
It’s tied housing. That requires work. The King is offering Prince Andrew a 5 bedroom house to replace it.
Surprised that you think public assets should be used to subsidise non working royals
He doesn't, it's a joke (attempt).
Is the suggestion I learn reading and comprehension part of the “joke”?
If so it’s almost as funny as calling me an ass sucker
Lord bless him he's not very good at trolling on royalist issues, but thinks he is.
TSE voted Liberal Democrat at the last 2 general elections, so is quite happy to support unpopular causes whatever the common masses may think. Supporting Prince Andrew is just another extension of that I suppose. Indeed Prince Andrew's favourability rating is virtually identical to the percentage saying they will vote for Ed Davey's party next year at the general election (once the Nimby and potholes LD local election protest voters return to their usual home when the government of the country is at stake).
I expect backing what is popular all the time would be a bit common for a snob like TSE!
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
Another election today in the German state of Bremen.
An excellent result for the SPD who seem to be recovering from their immediate post-election slump. They are on 29.5% (+4.6, changes from the last state election), nicely ahead of the CDU on 25.5% (-1.2). A poor result for the Greens with 12.5% (-4.9) while Linke (10.5, -0.8%) are pretty much the same.
The other big winners are the Burger in Wut (Angry Citizen Party) who have polled 10.5% (+8.1). They've done well because the Alternative candidates were disqualified so most of their vote has gone to the fairly similar BiW Party. The FDP look to have just survived with 5.5% (-0.4).
In truth, very little will change with the SPD/Green/Linke coalition still likely to have 48 of the 87 seats in the local Assembly.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
This is what (allegedly) got him in trouble in the first place.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
It’s tied housing. That requires work. The King is offering Prince Andrew a 5 bedroom house to replace it.
Surprised that you think public assets should be used to subsidise non working royals
He doesn't, it's a joke (attempt).
Is the suggestion I learn reading and comprehension part of the “joke”?
If so it’s almost as funny as calling me an ass sucker
Lord bless him he's not very good at trolling on royalist issues, but thinks he is.
TSE voted Liberal Democrat at the last 2 general elections, so is quite happy to support unpopular causes whatever the common masses may think. Supporting Prince Andrew is just another extension of that I suppose.
I expect backing what is popular all the time would be a bit common for a snob like TSE!
I am not a snob, I am an elitist, there is a difference between the two.
Fry’s Turkish Delight is grotesque but I’ve had some rather tastier examples in Turkish restaurants
*real* Turkish delight is lovely stuff, unlike that Fry's concoction.
It's a bit like *real* baklava, which is absolutely scrumptious. My home-made stuff is never as good (although making it at home allows me to vary the recipe).
France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.
Still want to rejoin the EU?
For Germany, it'll be because of the laws on Nazi content, and on denying the holocaust. It isn't a great surprise that they'll have issued a lot of takedown of that kind of content.
For France, I don't know what their excuse is.
That's the assumption for Germany.
We don't know if that's what is behind all of it.
But it's one to remember next time someone accuses the British government of being "Nazis" over censorship.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
I have read that it's been suggested to Andrew that he follows the example of John Profumo, who after being involved in a sex scandal, worked for a charity in the East End for decades but Andrew isn't interested in charity work.
He probably isn't interested, but it would be complicated, as no charity would want to be associated publicly with him. I am sure he will find a niche, but it seems his big brother isn't being terribly helpful.
If Brighton keep Ze Derbi then definitely worth a punt on them getting top 4 next season or better.
The only problem is a number of their players are likely to leave
That, and you have to look at the amount of serious opposition they need to finish ahead of. There's the conventional Big Six (are Chelsea really going to stay prone on the canvas for very long?), plus Newcastle and arguably Villa as well. To get Top 4, Brighton are obviously going to have to finish above most of that group. Not easy.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
Istanbul and Ankara Mayors İmamoğlu and Yavaş are making an announcement right now. They are accusing @anadoluajansi of manipulating the numbers they are reporting
"Their credibility is under 0%." "Don't pay attention to their data."
Priests to carry ID cards that reveal if they are sex offenders
Abuse survivors describe traffic light system for clergy as one of the ‘Catholic Church’s top three most stupid ideas’
Priests in France will be required to carry QR codes that the public can scan in order to check if they have been struck off as part of a sexual abuse clampdown.
The new wallet-sized ID cards will, after being scanned by a mobile phone, bring up a green, orange or red light depending on the priest’s status and career history.
The new system announced at the French Bishops’ Conference is designed to make the church more transparent but has been criticised as frivolous by some sex abuse survivor groups.
The ID card’s main function is to show whether a priest is qualified to lead mass or hear confession, but the code also discloses whether the priest has been stripped of clerical status.
The card does not explicitly state why a priest has been stripped of that status, but the red colour code would serve as an early warning signal that they may have faced sexual abuse charges.
This means the cards can in effect be used by Catholics to find out whether bishops, deacons and priests in their area are possible sex offenders, broadcaster France 24 reported.
The orange light may simply indicate that a recently-ordained priest is not fully qualified to lead a mass yet.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.
Still want to rejoin the EU?
For Germany, it'll be because of the laws on Nazi content, and on denying the holocaust. It isn't a great surprise that they'll have issued a lot of takedown of that kind of content.
For France, I don't know what their excuse is.
That's the assumption for Germany.
We don't know if that's what is behind all of it.
But it's one to remember next time someone accuses the British government of being "Nazis" over censorship.
I'm not accusing the British of being Nazis, I'm just pointing out that there's a very understandable reason why the German government issues a lot of Twitter takedown notices.
If there's a country on there that's shocking, it's not the UK or the US (which tread lightly), Russia or Turkey (which we know have autocratic governments), it's France.
I would very much like to know (a) what they're demanding is taken down, and (b) how it's trended over time.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
I have read that it's been suggested to Andrew that he follows the example of John Profumo, who after being involved in a sex scandal, worked for a charity in the East End for decades but Andrew isn't interested in charity work.
He probably isn't interested, but it would be complicated, as no charity would want to be associated publicly with him. I am sure he will find a niche, but it seems his big brother isn't being terribly helpful.
The King just sees him as a risk I imagine. No upside and unfathomable downside. I think Andrew, if the truth be told, may well feel himself to be somewhat harshly done by. There's no appeal against the wishes of the King though in this sort of thing.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
It’s tied housing. That requires work. The King is offering Prince Andrew a 5 bedroom house to replace it.
Surprised that you think public assets should be used to subsidise non working royals
He doesn't, it's a joke (attempt).
Is the suggestion I learn reading and comprehension part of the “joke”?
If so it’s almost as funny as calling me an ass sucker
Lord bless him he's not very good at trolling on royalist issues, but thinks he is.
TSE voted Liberal Democrat at the last 2 general elections, so is quite happy to support unpopular causes whatever the common masses may think. Supporting Prince Andrew is just another extension of that I suppose.
I expect backing what is popular all the time would be a bit common for a snob like TSE!
I am not a snob, I am an elitist, there is a difference between the two.
I see that there is a lot of discussion at the moment regarding the findings of 'civil' court cases as proof of guilt. But this is a bad path to be going on.
For instance, see this guardian article from 2006 about a murder of a child in Newcastle, in 1993. The suspect in the trial was acquitted in court on the direction of the judge due to problems with the police interviews where the suspect admitted the murder.
"George Heron, then 24, lived on the same estate, having moved in only weeks earlier with his sister. At first Heron denied knowing Nikki, but he admitted he did after witnesses came forward to say they had seen him with her on several occasions. There was other evidence. The blade of a knife recovered from his lodgings matched the stab wounds. Blood splatters were found on Heron's shoe and other clothing. His sister told police that on returning home on the night of Nikki's murder, Heron had gone straight to the bathroom where, uncharacteristically, he spent "a good half hour" washing both himself and his clothes. Although Heron had at first denied going out that evening, four separate witnesses saw a man at the Boar's Head and Clarendon public houses fitting his description. The man was seen buying cheese-and-onion crisps - Nikki's favourite - which police believed the killer used to lure Nikki into the building where she died".
Then the bereaved mother pursued a civil case against the acquitted suspect:
"In 1994 Sharon took out a civil action against Heron, suing him for damages for "battery of a child resulting in her death". Heron did not contest the case which Sharon won. The court awarded her £7,000, but she has never received any money. "I had to do something," she says. "After the trial the police never apologised or explained what went wrong. I felt abandoned."
It all sounds as though the case has been proved and the perpetrator has been let off on a technicality due to police failings. The mother would not let the situation go however and kept on at the police to keep investigating the case through reassessing the forensic evidence.
They did this, but eventually found that Heron was not the killer - it was a different person completely - who has just been tried and found guilty of the murder.
This unfortunate tale demonstrates that the criminal standard of proof exists for good reasons.
Here is some facebook discussions in 2017 - people convincing themselves that the new evidence must have meant that the original suspect was going to get tried again.
To my mind this is all reminiscent of PB, when people convince themselves that a civil court finding is proof of an actual crime - as was the case a few days ago with the Trump case.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
Has Andrew done a day's work in his life, an absolute parasite chancer, get him chucked out quick.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
He's got 22 years of reckonable service and retired as an OF-4 so his RN pension would be pretty adequate. He could easily live on that. Although he did somehow manage to get promoted four times after retirement (amazing achievement) but I don't know if that changes the pension calculation.
He should be able to get anything he wants out of Sausage Fingers by threatening to do a book. Just "Randy" would be an excellent title. I'd torrent it.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
Has Andrew done a day's work in his life, an absolute parasite chancer, get him chucked out quick.
We can't get him chucked out, and I'd prefer he has something to do rather than releasing tell all autobiographies.
I see that there is a lot of discussion at the moment regarding the findings of 'civil' court cases as proof of guilt. But this is a bad path to be going on.
For instance, see this guardian article from 2006 about a murder of a child in Newcastle, in 1993. The suspect in the trial was acquitted in court on the direction of the judge due to problems with the police interviews where the suspect admitted the murder.
"George Heron, then 24, lived on the same estate, having moved in only weeks earlier with his sister. At first Heron denied knowing Nikki, but he admitted he did after witnesses came forward to say they had seen him with her on several occasions. There was other evidence. The blade of a knife recovered from his lodgings matched the stab wounds. Blood splatters were found on Heron's shoe and other clothing. His sister told police that on returning home on the night of Nikki's murder, Heron had gone straight to the bathroom where, uncharacteristically, he spent "a good half hour" washing both himself and his clothes. Although Heron had at first denied going out that evening, four separate witnesses saw a man at the Boar's Head and Clarendon public houses fitting his description. The man was seen buying cheese-and-onion crisps - Nikki's favourite - which police believed the killer used to lure Nikki into the building where she died".
Then the bereaved mother pursued a civil case against the acquitted suspect:
"In 1994 Sharon took out a civil action against Heron, suing him for damages for "battery of a child resulting in her death". Heron did not contest the case which Sharon won. The court awarded her £7,000, but she has never received any money. "I had to do something," she says. "After the trial the police never apologised or explained what went wrong. I felt abandoned."
It all sounds as though the case has been proved and the perpetrator has been let off on a technicality due to police failings. The mother would not let the situation go however and kept on at the police to keep investigating the case through reassessing the forensic evidence.
They did this, but eventually found that Heron was not the killer - it was a different person completely - who has just been tried and found guilty of the murder.
This unfortunate tale demonstrates that the criminal standard of proof exists for good reasons.
Here is some facebook discussions in 2017 - people convincing themselves that the new evidence must have meant that the original suspect was going to get tried again.
To my mind this is all reminiscent of PB, when people convince themselves that a civil court finding is proof of an actual crime - as was the case a few days ago with the Trump case.
A comment that shows how much people want to deny that they were wrong:
"Can we all keep in min that heron was given new ID . So could this “re arrest” be the same perosn under his new name ??"
As for Trump: IMO the evidence he gave in the case was much more damning than the actual verdict...
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
Some years ago, in a judges chambers, she clearly stated that she would enforce her judgements on one party in a case and would not enforce them on the other party.
I think I should have reported that to the Law Society - should I?
Fry’s Turkish Delight is grotesque but I’ve had some rather tastier examples in Turkish restaurants
*real* Turkish delight is lovely stuff, unlike that Fry's concoction.
It's a bit like *real* baklava, which is absolutely scrumptious. My home-made stuff is never as good (although making it at home allows me to vary the recipe).
Baklava is incredible.
Mrs J once brought some baklava back from Turkey. Her dad drives most days to a certain bakery in another part of the city to get it; none of the local bakeries make it quite how he likes it. I went away on a hike immediately (great timing to go away just as she came back...) and I swear that I lived off the baklava for the first few days, it is so darned rich. Although also very, very sticky...
Priests to carry ID cards that reveal if they are sex offenders
Abuse survivors describe traffic light system for clergy as one of the ‘Catholic Church’s top three most stupid ideas’
Priests in France will be required to carry QR codes that the public can scan in order to check if they have been struck off as part of a sexual abuse clampdown.
The new wallet-sized ID cards will, after being scanned by a mobile phone, bring up a green, orange or red light depending on the priest’s status and career history.
The new system announced at the French Bishops’ Conference is designed to make the church more transparent but has been criticised as frivolous by some sex abuse survivor groups.
The ID card’s main function is to show whether a priest is qualified to lead mass or hear confession, but the code also discloses whether the priest has been stripped of clerical status.
The card does not explicitly state why a priest has been stripped of that status, but the red colour code would serve as an early warning signal that they may have faced sexual abuse charges.
This means the cards can in effect be used by Catholics to find out whether bishops, deacons and priests in their area are possible sex offenders, broadcaster France 24 reported.
The orange light may simply indicate that a recently-ordained priest is not fully qualified to lead a mass yet.
When your starting point is an all powerful all knowing God most stupid ideas start from a pretty high level.
Is it just me, or is the plan above an absolute minefield of legal disasters, both immediate and waiting to happen? Privacy, innocence/guilt, safe guarding…..
I see that there is a lot of discussion at the moment regarding the findings of 'civil' court cases as proof of guilt. But this is a bad path to be going on.
For instance, see this guardian article from 2006 about a murder of a child in Newcastle, in 1993. The suspect in the trial was acquitted in court on the direction of the judge due to problems with the police interviews where the suspect admitted the murder.
"George Heron, then 24, lived on the same estate, having moved in only weeks earlier with his sister. At first Heron denied knowing Nikki, but he admitted he did after witnesses came forward to say they had seen him with her on several occasions. There was other evidence. The blade of a knife recovered from his lodgings matched the stab wounds. Blood splatters were found on Heron's shoe and other clothing. His sister told police that on returning home on the night of Nikki's murder, Heron had gone straight to the bathroom where, uncharacteristically, he spent "a good half hour" washing both himself and his clothes. Although Heron had at first denied going out that evening, four separate witnesses saw a man at the Boar's Head and Clarendon public houses fitting his description. The man was seen buying cheese-and-onion crisps - Nikki's favourite - which police believed the killer used to lure Nikki into the building where she died".
Then the bereaved mother pursued a civil case against the acquitted suspect:
"In 1994 Sharon took out a civil action against Heron, suing him for damages for "battery of a child resulting in her death". Heron did not contest the case which Sharon won. The court awarded her £7,000, but she has never received any money. "I had to do something," she says. "After the trial the police never apologised or explained what went wrong. I felt abandoned."
It all sounds as though the case has been proved and the perpetrator has been let off on a technicality due to police failings. The mother would not let the situation go however and kept on at the police to keep investigating the case through reassessing the forensic evidence.
They did this, but eventually found that Heron was not the killer - it was a different person completely - who has just been tried and found guilty of the murder.
This unfortunate tale demonstrates that the criminal standard of proof exists for good reasons.
Here is some facebook discussions in 2017 - people convincing themselves that the new evidence must have meant that the original suspect was going to get tried again.
To my mind this is all reminiscent of PB, when people convince themselves that a civil court finding is proof of an actual crime - as was the case a few days ago with the Trump case.
A comment that shows how much people want to deny that they were wrong:
"Can we all keep in min that heron was given new ID . So could this “re arrest” be the same perosn under his new name ??"
As for Trump: IMO the evidence he gave in the case was much more damning than the actual verdict...
My favourite comment is the following:
"yet another ruling by a judge that we the public just don't understand".
Priests to carry ID cards that reveal if they are sex offenders
Abuse survivors describe traffic light system for clergy as one of the ‘Catholic Church’s top three most stupid ideas’
Priests in France will be required to carry QR codes that the public can scan in order to check if they have been struck off as part of a sexual abuse clampdown.
The new wallet-sized ID cards will, after being scanned by a mobile phone, bring up a green, orange or red light depending on the priest’s status and career history.
The new system announced at the French Bishops’ Conference is designed to make the church more transparent but has been criticised as frivolous by some sex abuse survivor groups.
The ID card’s main function is to show whether a priest is qualified to lead mass or hear confession, but the code also discloses whether the priest has been stripped of clerical status.
The card does not explicitly state why a priest has been stripped of that status, but the red colour code would serve as an early warning signal that they may have faced sexual abuse charges.
This means the cards can in effect be used by Catholics to find out whether bishops, deacons and priests in their area are possible sex offenders, broadcaster France 24 reported.
The orange light may simply indicate that a recently-ordained priest is not fully qualified to lead a mass yet.
When your starting point is an all powerful all knowing God most stupid ideas start from a pretty high level.
Is it just me, or is the plan above an absolute minefield of legal disasters, both immediate and waiting to happen? Privacy, innocence/guilt, safe guarding…..
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
What makes you think he’d be any good at it? Why should the users of the facilities suffer?
Priests to carry ID cards that reveal if they are sex offenders
Abuse survivors describe traffic light system for clergy as one of the ‘Catholic Church’s top three most stupid ideas’
Priests in France will be required to carry QR codes that the public can scan in order to check if they have been struck off as part of a sexual abuse clampdown.
The new wallet-sized ID cards will, after being scanned by a mobile phone, bring up a green, orange or red light depending on the priest’s status and career history.
The new system announced at the French Bishops’ Conference is designed to make the church more transparent but has been criticised as frivolous by some sex abuse survivor groups.
The ID card’s main function is to show whether a priest is qualified to lead mass or hear confession, but the code also discloses whether the priest has been stripped of clerical status.
The card does not explicitly state why a priest has been stripped of that status, but the red colour code would serve as an early warning signal that they may have faced sexual abuse charges.
This means the cards can in effect be used by Catholics to find out whether bishops, deacons and priests in their area are possible sex offenders, broadcaster France 24 reported.
The orange light may simply indicate that a recently-ordained priest is not fully qualified to lead a mass yet.
When your starting point is an all powerful all knowing God most stupid ideas start from a pretty high level.
Is it just me, or is the plan above an absolute minefield of legal disasters, both immediate and waiting to happen? Privacy, innocence/guilt, safe guarding…..
If they believed all the nonsense they spout about eternal damnation and the rest, there wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.
It’s just proof that organised religion is always hypocrisy.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
I’m not sure that it would be possible to drive Sarah Fergusson loopy…
It’s good for Andrew to fill his time. I just don’t understand why that is Charles’ responsibility to organise
I’m not sure if anyone has a reliable sense of the current situation - seems reported vote shares differ from news agencies / whoever wants their guy to win
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
I’m not sure that it would be possible to drive Sarah Fergusson loopy…
It’s good for Andrew to fill his time. I just don’t understand why that is Charles’ responsibility to organise
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
Some years ago, in a judges chambers, she clearly stated that she would enforce her judgements on one party in a case and would not enforce them on the other party.
I think I should have reported that to the Law Society - should I?
I’d have thought the Master of the Rolls pr the LCD (whoever oversees the judges). I think it would call into question her fitness to perform the roll.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
I’m not sure that it would be possible to drive Sarah Fergusson loopy…
It’s good for Andrew to fill his time. I just don’t understand why that is Charles’ responsibility to organise
Because Charles will be the one employing him.
Why? Charles doesn’t see an appropriate role for him in the new set up
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
I have read that it's been suggested to Andrew that he follows the example of John Profumo, who after being involved in a sex scandal, worked for a charity in the East End for decades but Andrew isn't interested in charity work.
He probably isn't interested, but it would be complicated, as no charity would want to be associated publicly with him. I am sure he will find a niche, but it seems his big brother isn't being terribly helpful.
Brand Windsor is being made squeaky clean, Andrew is dreadfully inconvenient to this process.
On a connected note, after their shameless PR stunt at Eurovision where will the royal attention grabbers pop up next? Onstage with Sir Elton at Glasto?
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
I actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew in one respect, like Harry, he saw combat in a war, yet like Harry he wasn't able to wear his military uniform when those members of the Royal Family who have never seen action wore military uniforms replete with medals for attending a concert.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
I have read that it's been suggested to Andrew that he follows the example of John Profumo, who after being involved in a sex scandal, worked for a charity in the East End for decades but Andrew isn't interested in charity work.
He probably isn't interested, but it would be complicated, as no charity would want to be associated publicly with him. I am sure he will find a niche, but it seems his big brother isn't being terribly helpful.
Brand Windsor is being made squeaky clean, Andrew is dreadfully inconvenient to this process.
On a connected note, after their shameless PR stunt at Eurovision where will the royal attention grabbers pop up next? Onstage with Sir Elton at Glasto?
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
Comments
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/1657783107271925761
The court's verdict was "not guilty", but that didn't mean he wasn't in fact guilty of murder.
There are ex military men and women who struggle after military life, there are charities he could work for. Just even for a chat.
DavidL said:
» show previous quotes
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
David, what are your thoughts on getting rid of juries and Not Proven. Seems to me just more meddling by SNP nutjobs.
Surprised that you think public assets should be used to subsidise non working royals
Feels like it's a 60:40 race to me, not a slam dunk for KK, so on that basis have nibbled Erdogan at above 3s.
We'll see.
"Their credibility is under 0%."
"Don't pay attention to their data."
Clearly have different #s for their cities
https://twitter.com/notvladedivac/status/1657787514826940416?s=46
Hmm
This then means that, if the service provider years them badly, they will find out harder to leave, because they'd have to convince all of their friends, family and colleagues to do the same. This creates a power imbalance between the company and the customer - and consequently it is appropriate to use regulation to redress this balance.
If so it’s almost as funny as him calling me an ass sucker
Overall currently 34% counted, Erdogan leads 53-41.
Istanbul is 29% counted, he leads 48-47 (2018 final result 50%). In 2018, Istanbul voted for Erdogan 2.5% below his nationwide score.
Ankara is 31% counted, he leads 52-41 (2018 final 51.5%)
So yes still a lot out in these two biggest regions but so far not much change from 2018.
Bayburt (yes small region) now 90% counted, Erdogan at 80% down from 82% in 2018.
Also the right-wing nationalist candidate Ogan is over 5% currently and I would have thought Erdogan gets the majority of his votes in a Rd 2?
So imho Erdogan is still very much in this, but we will see.
I'm playing it but no more seriously than backgammon.
I can’t find the link, but there was a brilliant presentation by a US marine - a Colonel, I think - back in the 90s. He demonstrated that precision weapons were cheaper. You won just on the cost of rounds actually fired. But then, for artillery, it was cheaper in terms of logistics, barrel replacement, and so on.
A million dumb rounds sounds good, but are out performed by a few thousand smart rounds.
This does look like a bit of an anachronism now.
Erdogan well ahead in the cities?
The Conservative party has found itself at a crossroads on housebuilding, and whichever way they turn they risk alienating voters.
Does the party of homeownership stay faithful to its loyal base who bought in a very different economic climate and don't very much want development in their back yards? Or do they persuade younger voters locked out of the property market that they can build more properties before they vote for someone else they think will enable them to buy a house?
The latter is viewed by many, including a number of leading Tory MPs, to be the key to unlocking electoral success when the government next goes to the polls. The price, however, could be the support of the former.
For the 13 years the Conservatives have been in power, the party has written proposals and put forward white papers to shake up the country’s planning system. But during this period the parliamentary party has been divided between its pro-building arm and traditional anti-development faction.
A new clash between the two groups has emerged since the local elections last week, after one senior Tory partly blamed an increase in housebuilding on Conservative losses, while pro-planning Tories continue their desperate plea for more houses.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/conservatives-housebuilding-planning-voters-anti-development
For instance, see this guardian article from 2006 about a murder of a child in Newcastle, in 1993. The suspect in the trial was acquitted in court on the direction of the judge due to problems with the police interviews where the suspect admitted the murder.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/11/ukcrime.features11
"George Heron, then 24, lived on the same estate, having moved in only weeks earlier with his sister. At first Heron denied knowing Nikki, but he admitted he did after witnesses came forward to say they had seen him with her on several occasions. There was other evidence. The blade of a knife recovered from his lodgings matched the stab wounds. Blood splatters were found on Heron's shoe and other clothing. His sister told police that on returning home on the night of Nikki's murder, Heron had gone straight to the bathroom where, uncharacteristically, he spent "a good half hour" washing both himself and his clothes. Although Heron had at first denied going out that evening, four separate witnesses saw a man at the Boar's Head and Clarendon public houses fitting his description. The man was seen buying cheese-and-onion crisps - Nikki's favourite - which police believed the killer used to lure Nikki into the building where she died".
Then the bereaved mother pursued a civil case against the acquitted suspect:
"In 1994 Sharon took out a civil action against Heron, suing him for damages for "battery of a child resulting in her death". Heron did not contest the case which Sharon won. The court awarded her £7,000, but she has never received any money. "I had to do something," she says. "After the trial the police never apologised or explained what went wrong. I felt abandoned."
It all sounds as though the case has been proved and the perpetrator has been let off on a technicality due to police failings. The mother would not let the situation go however and kept on at the police to keep investigating the case through reassessing the forensic evidence.
They did this, but eventually found that Heron was not the killer - it was a different person completely - who has just been tried and found guilty of the murder.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/12/david-boyd-found-guilty-of-1992-of-seven-year-old-nikki-allan
This unfortunate tale demonstrates that the criminal standard of proof exists for good reasons.
For France, I don't know what their excuse is.
I expect backing what is popular all the time would be a bit common for a snob like TSE!
It’s stultifying.
An excellent result for the SPD who seem to be recovering from their immediate post-election slump. They are on 29.5% (+4.6, changes from the last state election), nicely ahead of the CDU on 25.5% (-1.2). A poor result for the Greens with 12.5% (-4.9) while Linke (10.5, -0.8%) are pretty much the same.
The other big winners are the Burger in Wut (Angry Citizen Party) who have polled 10.5% (+8.1). They've done well because the Alternative candidates were disqualified so most of their vote has gone to the fairly similar BiW Party. The FDP look to have just survived with 5.5% (-0.4).
In truth, very little will change with the SPD/Green/Linke coalition still likely to have 48 of the 87 seats in the local Assembly.
We don't know if that's what is behind all of it.
But it's one to remember next time someone accuses the British government of being "Nazis" over censorship.
Now, +£0 KK and +£51 Erdogan.
Easy like Sunday morning.
If there's a country on there that's shocking, it's not the UK or the US (which tread lightly), Russia or Turkey (which we know have autocratic governments), it's France.
I would very much like to know (a) what they're demanding is taken down, and (b) how it's trended over time.
https://m.facebook.com/UKdatabaseREAL/photos/a.283506542262856/382061275740715/?_se_imp=2QYvayhOf5bonOTqM
To my mind this is all reminiscent of PB, when people convince themselves that a civil court finding is proof of an actual crime - as was the case a few days ago with the Trump case.
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
He should be able to get anything he wants out of Sausage Fingers by threatening to do a book. Just "Randy" would be an excellent title. I'd torrent it.
"Can we all keep in min that heron was given new ID . So could this “re arrest” be the same perosn under his new name ??"
As for Trump: IMO the evidence he gave in the case was much more damning than the actual verdict...
I think I should have reported that to the Law Society - should I?
"yet another ruling by a judge that we the public just don't understand".
It’s just proof that organised religion is always hypocrisy.
It’s good for Andrew to fill his time. I just don’t understand why that is Charles’ responsibility to organise
On a connected note, after their shameless PR stunt at Eurovision where will the royal attention grabbers pop up next? Onstage with Sir Elton at Glasto?