Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Turkish delight for Erdogan from Elon Musk – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,325
    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    Ok so did you manage to grab Erdogan at 4 on BF? Now into 2.9

    % counted, Erdogan 2023, Erdogan 2018

    Turkey 17% counted, Erdogan 56% (KK 38%), 53% (final Rd 1 result 2018)

    Ankara 10 55 52

    Istanbul 8 49 50

    Gumushane 43 74 77

    Bayburt 66 81 82

    Burdur 35 55 54

    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.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    FPT
    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.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,515

    TimS said:

    Ok so did you manage to grab Erdogan at 4 on BF? Now into 2.9

    % counted, Erdogan 2023, Erdogan 2018

    Turkey 17% counted, Erdogan 56% (KK 38%), 53% (final Rd 1 result 2018)

    Ankara 10 55 52

    Istanbul 8 49 50

    Gumushane 43 74 77

    Bayburt 66 81 82

    Burdur 35 55 54

    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.
  • Options
    DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 780
    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    Ok so did you manage to grab Erdogan at 4 on BF? Now into 2.9

    % counted, Erdogan 2023, Erdogan 2018

    Turkey 17% counted, Erdogan 56% (KK 38%), 53% (final Rd 1 result 2018)

    Ankara 10 55 52

    Istanbul 8 49 50

    Gumushane 43 74 77

    Bayburt 66 81 82

    Burdur 35 55 54

    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 ... :smiley:
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    Yokes said:

    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.

    Russians are crapping it now and trigger happy.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,441

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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”
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,325

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    Ok so did you manage to grab Erdogan at 4 on BF? Now into 2.9

    % counted, Erdogan 2023, Erdogan 2018

    Turkey 17% counted, Erdogan 56% (KK 38%), 53% (final Rd 1 result 2018)

    Ankara 10 55 52

    Istanbul 8 49 50

    Gumushane 43 74 77

    Bayburt 66 81 82

    Burdur 35 55 54

    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 ... :smiley:
    That would make sense. The other is AA, which seems to be government aligned.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,325
    Now 53-40 after 32% counted.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    WillG said:

    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
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    edited May 2023

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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).
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    Ok so did you manage to grab Erdogan at 4 on BF? Now into 2.9

    % counted, Erdogan 2023, Erdogan 2018

    Turkey 17% counted, Erdogan 56% (KK 38%), 53% (final Rd 1 result 2018)

    Ankara 10 55 52

    Istanbul 8 49 50

    Gumushane 43 74 77

    Bayburt 66 81 82

    Burdur 35 55 54

    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.

    We'll see.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,714

    WillG said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Options
    SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 642

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    TimS said:

    Chris said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    First results now in:

    https://www.yenisafak.com/en/secim-cumhurbaskanligi-2023/secim-sonuclari

    9% counted Erdogan leads 59-35

    "Stop the Count"
    Might be a surplus "o" in there....

    Has the count been subcontracted to some friendly Russian friends of Putin?
    It’s apparently perfectly normal pattern as they count the rural wards first. Like in the US.

    Quite a few opposition supporters on Twitter seemingly rather happy with the early results despite appearances.

    Erdogan now at 55% after 19% counted, dropping again.
    What does "KK 38%" mean?
    As in the opposition leader whose name I always forget how to spell but is referred to hg everyone as KK.
    Ah. Thanks. I guess a modicum of familiarity with the election would help.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,325
    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."

    Clearly have different #s for their cities
    https://twitter.com/notvladedivac/status/1657787514826940416?s=46

    Hmm
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671
    This choke from Arsenal is Devon Lochesque.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    edited May 2023

    WillG said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,441
    edited May 2023
    kle4 said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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 him calling me an ass sucker
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671
    SandraMc said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
    It did wonders for John Profumo's mental health.
  • Options
    DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 780
    edited May 2023
    Ok so a quick update and a couple of thoughts FWIW:

    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.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341

    kle4 said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924

    Ok so a quick update and a couple of thoughts FWIW:

    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 nationwide.

    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 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.

    Erdoğan looks like value to me - he was at 3.15 when I checked a few minutes ago - but it's a risky market.

    I'm playing it but no more seriously than backgammon.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,658

    France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.

    Still want to rejoin the EU?

    If you are offering. Yes please.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    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.

    https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1657675029813796866

    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.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,292

    carnforth said:

    "Headlong retreat within 14 hours. Starmer is serious about winning"

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1657709974649176064

    Slalom Sir Keir!

    https://youtu.be/V6zRPf-up74
    Do Britons have voting rights in Commonwealth countries?

    This does look like a bit of an anachronism now.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165

    France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.

    Still want to rejoin the EU?

    Yes please!
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,714

    WillG said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,292
    These Turkish figures look implausible to me.

    Erdogan well ahead in the cities?
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,089

    These Turkish figures look implausible to me.

    Erdogan well ahead in the cities?

    I wonder if there's a Turkish site like PB (or the lesser likes)?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    WillG said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,753
    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.


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/conservatives-housebuilding-planning-voters-anti-development
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671
    If Brighton keep Ze Derbi then definitely worth a punt on them getting top 4 next season or better.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002
    edited May 2023
    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.

    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.


  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,154
    Looks all over for Arsenal - losing 2 nil
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671

    Looks all over for Arsenal - losing 2 nil

    All gone wrong for Arsenal since Xhaka annoyed the Anfield crowd.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Pah.

    WillG said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,154

    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
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,219

    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.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,089
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    One can always have a next Republic! Mon Dieu!
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,219

    Looks all over for Arsenal - losing 2 nil

    It was all over for Arsenal when they drew three games in a row from winning positions.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078
    edited May 2023
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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!
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Suella Braverman accused of breaching barristers’ code over ‘racist’ language
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-accused-of-breaching-barristers-code-over-racist-language

    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.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,246
    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.
  • Options
    FossFoss Posts: 723

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,638

    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.

  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,154
    And its 3
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,638

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    ...
    SandraMc said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,261

    If Brighton keep Ze Derbi then definitely worth a punt on them getting top 4 next season or better.

    Likely to lose Mcallister though, aren’t they?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    I've greened up on Turkish market. Erdogan come in a lot.

    Now, +£0 KK and +£51 Erdogan.

    Easy like Sunday morning.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,753

    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.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 780
    Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    TimS said:

    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."

    Clearly have different #s for their cities
    https://twitter.com/notvladedivac/status/1657787514826940416?s=46

    Hmm

    The same thing happened with the mayoral election, didn’t it ?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,388

    **Checks date, no it isn't April 1st**

    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.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/14/france-catholic-church-sex-abuse-id-cards-qr-code-priests/

    When your starting point is an all powerful all knowing God most stupid ideas start from a pretty high level.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342
    kle4 said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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).
    It’s mainly trolling, but he’s actually being unfair to a named individual who is doing his job as best as he can
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,219

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,089

    ...

    SandraMc said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
    That is what all the LD voters say!
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002
    darkage said:

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    Sean_F said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
    Keep your criminals we don't want or need them.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,928

    Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?

    Pleased I got on at 3 earlier.

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    WillG said:

    Cookie said:

    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?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669

    Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?

    Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?

    Vote now and vote often comes to mind
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,393
    Sean_F said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    ...
    malcolmg said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,059
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.
    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...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Suella Braverman accused of breaching barristers’ code over ‘racist’ language
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-accused-of-breaching-barristers-code-over-racist-language

    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?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,059
    Sean_F said:



    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...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    DavidL said:

    **Checks date, no it isn't April 1st**

    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.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/14/france-catholic-church-sex-abuse-id-cards-qr-code-priests/

    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…..
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.
    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".




  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,089

    DavidL said:

    **Checks date, no it isn't April 1st**

    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.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/14/france-catholic-church-sex-abuse-id-cards-qr-code-priests/

    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 think it was just a suggestion of initial fees.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342
    Sean_F said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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?
  • Options
    DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 780
    edited May 2023

    NEW: A well-placed source gives MEE the Erdogan campaign projection for the results

    CAUTION: This is based on current data, since counting continues.

    • 50 percent chance: Erdogan wins with 50.2 and 50.4%
    • 50 percent chance: There is a runoff https://t.co/GOqqNAjGsQ

    — Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) May 14, 2023
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,112

    DavidL said:

    **Checks date, no it isn't April 1st**

    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.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/14/france-catholic-church-sex-abuse-id-cards-qr-code-priests/

    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.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,031

    If Brighton keep Ze Derbi then definitely worth a punt on them getting top 4 next season or better.

    Disagree. They'll lose their best players and being in Europe will make a top 4 a very tough ask.
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,015

    NEW: A well-placed source gives MEE the Erdogan campaign projection for the results

    CAUTION: This is based on current data, since counting continues.

    • 50 percent chance: Erdogan wins with 50.2 and 50.4%
    • 50 percent chance: There is a runoff https://t.co/GOqqNAjGsQ

    — Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) May 14, 2023

    NEW: A well-placed source gives MEE the Erdogan campaign projection for the results

    CAUTION: This is based on current data, since counting continues.

    • 50 percent chance: Erdogan wins with 50.2 and 50.4%
    • 50 percent chance: There is a runoff https://t.co/GOqqNAjGsQ

    — Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) May 14, 2023
    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
  • Options
    DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 780
    and... Erdogan is now fav on BF. Bless anyone who believed the Turkish opinion polls and backed KK at 1.25 or so
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    ...

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Suella Braverman accused of breaching barristers’ code over ‘racist’ language
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-accused-of-breaching-barristers-code-over-racist-language

    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.

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    ...

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,928

    ...

    SandraMc said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    ...

    SandraMc said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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?
    I fear they are being overexposed

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    ...

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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
    If he gets his military pension and a fair sized house (free), surely he can just spend his time souping up old sports cars?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924

    Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?

    It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.

    Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924

    and... Erdogan is now fav on BF. Bless anyone who believed the Turkish opinion polls and backed KK at 1.25 or so

    I am an idiot for laying off Erdogan too early.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Suella Braverman accused of breaching barristers’ code over ‘racist’ language
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-accused-of-breaching-barristers-code-over-racist-language

    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.

    It was rather startling to see a judge saying (pretty much) that “I am biased to one side in this case, structurally. No matter the facts.”

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    Sean_F said:

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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.
    Wee Jock Poo Pong McPlop.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,039

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Suella Braverman accused of breaching barristers’ code over ‘racist’ language
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-accused-of-breaching-barristers-code-over-racist-language

    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.
    Nah, I don't like Braverman at all but this is bullshit.No one else is asked to make such choices. She won't be a politician for ever and will then want, I assume, to return to being a barrister. Why should she have to remove herself from the system simply for exercising her right to free speech which is fundamental to political activity.
    No one else? Other politicians are also barristers. Other politicians also have other jobs that have concomitant codes of conduct.

    If she wants to return to being a barrister later in her career, presumably she could just re-register as a barrister, going through the usual processes.

    Barristers have a code of conduct. If you feel this conflicts with a right to free speech, take it up with the barristers. Why should Braverman get special treatment? If there’s a problem, doesn’t it affect all barristers?
    it’s not the principle of a code.

    If she broke the law, for example, it would be fine for the bar council to take action.

    But “conduct unbecoming”? That’s entire a subjective catch all for when they know someone is dodgy but can’t prove it. And it’s wrong to use that against an elected politician (or anyone) for exercising their right to free speech
    The code should be applied equally to all barristers. Why should Braverman be treated differently?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,928

    TRT World
    @trtworld
    ·
    12m
    Türkiye has voted for the country's next president. Here are the latest results as of 0900 PM:

    Recep Tayyip Erdogan: 51.44%
    Muharrem Ince: 0.51%
    Kemal Kilicdaroglu: 42.73%
    Sinan Ogan: 5.32%
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    Farooq said:

    and... Erdogan is now fav on BF. Bless anyone who believed the Turkish opinion polls and backed KK at 1.25 or so

    I am an idiot for laying off Erdogan too early.
    Four words was enough
    How much do you stand to make on this market?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Suella Braverman accused of breaching barristers’ code over ‘racist’ language
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-accused-of-breaching-barristers-code-over-racist-language

    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.
    And if it's upheld, good.
    The Bar Council is designed to regulate the legal industry

    Legal political speech should not be restricted by them. It’s a massive overreach.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    ...

    The King really does treat his family badly.

    ‘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.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    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
    If he gets his military pension and a fair sized house (free), surely he can just spend his time souping up old sports cars?
    Would bore me personally, but if that’s what he wants to go then all power to him
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,039

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Suella Braverman accused of breaching barristers’ code over ‘racist’ language
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-accused-of-breaching-barristers-code-over-racist-language

    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.
    The barristers can’t stop her being an MP. Her status as an MP is up to the electorate. Nothing here is challenging her status as an MP.

    If the barristers’ code of conduct has ill-defined terms, that doesn’t sound like a good code. However, I find it difficult to believe that barristers of all people would have a code of conduct with ill-defined terms! Maybe they have a better grasp of these matters than you do?
This discussion has been closed.