How pathetic that Tim Davie didn't take questions from the media in person...all questions had to be done via chat, with a BBC lacky then reading them out. Obviously he didn't want to have to face any follow ups.
Part of the reason bosses are supposed paid the big bucks is when the shit hits the fan they have to face up to it and be open and transparent as possible.
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
Hold on, am I understanding you right... do you think the Reign of Terror was the work of Napoleon? Also, I assume you're referring to Louis XVI.
I think you need to understand the gap of several years between the outbreak of revolution and the rise of Napoleon. It sounds to me like you think he was integral to it as opposed to a beneficiary.
Napoleon's political constituency was the middle classes, who were the big winners from the Revolution as they grabbed cheap property previously owned by the aristocracy and the Church. His pitch to the middle classes was he would ensure they could keep their new gains.
Alright, but in 1789 he was an obscure teenager. Even by the time of the terror he was fairly minor artillery commander in the south.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
I guess the question there is whether there was a stable state where half of Europe was under Napoleon's control, but the other half or so - e.g. Russia and Britain - weren't?
I think there are some things where there isn't a stable halfway state. Napoleonic France seems like one of them.
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
Muckrakers gonna rake muck. The Sun doesn't have a reputation to lose; the BBC does. This war is assymmetric.
What nonsense. The BBC spawned and nurtured Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, et al
It has no reputation to defend in this instance
Rarely, this whole farrago has nothing to do with the Culture Wars. It's just a toxic mix of social media, our love of salacious gossip, and the desire of media to talk about media. Nothing else
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
No, I don't think so.
Not everyone will agree! But I doubt that The S*n and GBeebies give a rat fuck about the "child" who is the alleged victim. They just want to bash the left, somehow hoping that they manage to turn enough people against the "woke agenda" to make the election winnable.
Big piece in the FT today (that bastion of leftie socialism) with leading Tories admitting defeat and hoping to disappear off for the summer with *something* happening to save them...
This has nothing to do with the Tories. Why are the Mirror so keen on it if it is?
If it is a witch hunt then that's because the BBC has knowingly harboured witches in the past.
Beyond that, it is clearly salacious gossip with no regard to any of the parties involved.
I find it extraordinary that some on the left are trying to pin this on the Tories
Of course the hatred of the Sun newspaper is well documented as is the loathing of the Murdoch press, the same Murdoch that Starmer was socialising with earlier this week
For me this is not political but a story about a well known BBC personality who is coming under great pressure over allegations about his behaviour
I understand Sky have a breaking news item on this for their 10.00 news
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
One interesting question...the BBC reporters quickly identified it was the presenter because of the phone number. Does that mean he has been doing this from his work phone, including sending abusive messages to people?
Even if its personal number to colleagues know, I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
One interesting question...the BBC reporters quickly identified it was the presenter because of the phone number. Does that mean he has been doing this from his work phone, including sending abusive messages to people?
I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
I agree but it happens time and time again (e.g. the 'tractor' MP in the HoC). I wonder if the risk element is part of the buzz.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
France was completely unable to defend its slice of what is now the US, and indeed most of it was unsettled and much not even explored. It would have been taken from France sooner or later and in that context selling it wasn’t such a dumb move.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
Working backwards:
- those villains didn't really need any historical inspiration - Waterloo almost came off, probably lost by Ney's impulsiveness and Napoleon not being well. He would of course have lost the subsequent battle against Austria and Russia, but still. - his useless relatives were a handicap for sure - none of the armies of the time behaved particularly well - he represented an existential threat to the old order and Europe's monarchies were never going to allow his republic to survive and succeed. Britain spent the entire period stirring up the rest of Europe towards war on France -
I'd be interested in your response to what I wrote - neither wholly admiring nor condemnatory of Napoleon.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
One interesting question...the BBC reporters quickly identified it was the presenter because of the phone number. Does that mean he has been doing this from his work phone, including sending abusive messages to people?
I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
I agree but it happens time and time again (e.g. the 'tractor' MP in the HoC). I wonder if the risk element is part of the buzz.
I think Tractor man was clearly a moron / IBM-incompatible, rather than necessarily about the risk.
The first job I had, a guy used work computers to download mucky videos. He got sent to Coventry, not metaphorically, literally as punishment. The best bit, he was an IT guy....but so bad he didn't cover his tracks in any way.
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
Muckrakers gonna rake muck. The Sun doesn't have a reputation to lose; the BBC does. This war is assymmetric.
What nonsense. The BBC spawned and nurtured Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, et al
It has no reputation to defend in this instance
Rarely, this whole farrago has nothing to do with the Culture Wars. It's just a toxic mix of social media, our love of salacious gossip, and the desire of media to talk about media. Nothing else
The data are four years old, but I doubt Rolf Harris is enough to have damaged the BBC that much since, and Savile was well and truly in the public consciousness by then.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
Napoleon, at any point between 1805 and 1813 could have risen up from the gambling table, and collected his winnings. But, that was not in his nature.
What a sad shadow of the old BBC we have now. Katy Razzall's fine for Glastonbury but she's out of her depth here. Facing the Sun there should be only one winner. But the new hollowed out BBC is quite simply unrecognisable. Is there anthying these Tory placemen are going to leave which is worth saving?
I know so many people who have worked there or kicked off their careers there (Ridley Scott and his Brother Tony to name but two). It goes much deeper than it's news departments. It's been the gold standard for decades but watching tonight I just switched off.
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
Muckrakers gonna rake muck. The Sun doesn't have a reputation to lose; the BBC does. This war is assymmetric.
What nonsense. The BBC spawned and nurtured Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, et al
It has no reputation to defend in this instance
Rarely, this whole farrago has nothing to do with the Culture Wars. It's just a toxic mix of social media, our love of salacious gossip, and the desire of media to talk about media. Nothing else
The data are four years old, but I doubt Rolf Harris is enough to have damaged the BBC that much since, and Savile was well and truly in the public consciousness by then.
The BBC has a reputation to defend? Yes. I agree. In things like News. Absolutely - and definitely more than The Sun
In things like defending nonces? Sorry, no, Savile explodes that (as do others)
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
Napoleon, at any point between 1805 and 1813 could have risen up from the gambling table, and collected his winnings. But, that was not in his nature.
The monarchies of Europe were never going to allow that. Rising up from the gambling table and endeavouring to walk away with your winnings is a tactic where success depends heavily on those with whom you have been playing.
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
Muckrakers gonna rake muck. The Sun doesn't have a reputation to lose; the BBC does. This war is assymmetric.
What nonsense. The BBC spawned and nurtured Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, et al
It has no reputation to defend in this instance
Rarely, this whole farrago has nothing to do with the Culture Wars. It's just a toxic mix of social media, our love of salacious gossip, and the desire of media to talk about media. Nothing else
It's all very much, the BBC are purer than the driven snow, whereas the Sun are filthy muckrakers. The latter is true, but how anyone can believe the former is a mystery.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
One interesting question...the BBC reporters quickly identified it was the presenter because of the phone number. Does that mean he has been doing this from his work phone, including sending abusive messages to people?
I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
I agree but it happens time and time again (e.g. the 'tractor' MP in the HoC). I wonder if the risk element is part of the buzz.
The ability of people to watch the entire series of every franchise of CSI…. And then use their personal mobile to phone someone to leave hate and abuse - it’s what provides half the work the police seem to do these days.
Some years ago, a flat in the building where I lived was burgled. I asked the policeman attending if there was any chance of catching the guy.
He said, we have him already.
The way the door was broken in using a big screwdriver was unique to a chap who’d got out of prison, days before. They went round and found him with various stolen goods from several burglaries, literally in his hands.
Apparently he had done this before - commited his exact same crime, with the same signature, just after getting out of jail.
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
Muckrakers gonna rake muck. The Sun doesn't have a reputation to lose; the BBC does. This war is assymmetric.
What nonsense. The BBC spawned and nurtured Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, et al
It has no reputation to defend in this instance
Rarely, this whole farrago has nothing to do with the Culture Wars. It's just a toxic mix of social media, our love of salacious gossip, and the desire of media to talk about media. Nothing else
The data are four years old, but I doubt Rolf Harris is enough to have damaged the BBC that much since, and Savile was well and truly in the public consciousness by then.
The BBC has a reputation to defend? Yes. I agree. In things like News. Absolutely - and definitely more than The Sun
In things like defending nonces? Sorry, no, Savile explodes that (as do others)
The accusations related to Tim Westwood that came out last year were worse than the current scandal and occurred over the course of 20 years at the BBC (and later Capital). But nobody knew nothing at the BBC....
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
No, I don't think so.
Not everyone will agree! But I doubt that The S*n and GBeebies give a rat fuck about the "child" who is the alleged victim. They just want to bash the left, somehow hoping that they manage to turn enough people against the "woke agenda" to make the election winnable.
Big piece in the FT today (that bastion of leftie socialism) with leading Tories admitting defeat and hoping to disappear off for the summer with *something* happening to save them...
This has nothing to do with the Tories. Why are the Mirror so keen on it if it is?
If it is a witch hunt then that's because the BBC has knowingly harboured witches in the past.
Beyond that, it is clearly salacious gossip with no regard to any of the parties involved.
I find it extraordinary that some on the left are trying to pin this on the Tories
Of course the hatred of the Sun newspaper is well documented as is the loathing of the Murdoch press, the same Murdoch that Starmer was socialising with earlier this week
For me this is not political but a story about a well known BBC personality who is coming under great pressure over allegations about his behaviour
I understand Sky have a breaking news item on this for their 10.00 news
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
Napoleon, at any point between 1805 and 1813 could have risen up from the gambling table, and collected his winnings. But, that was not in his nature.
Yes. Likewise, Hitler
Luckily for Humanity this terrible gambling instinct is common in many tyrants, it seems. Saddam is another example, invading Kuwait. They cannot help over-reaching
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
Napoleon, at any point between 1805 and 1813 could have risen up from the gambling table, and collected his winnings. But, that was not in his nature.
The monarchies of Europe were never going to allow that. Rising up from the gambling table and endeavouring to walk away with your winnings is a tactic where success depends heavily on those with whom you have been playing.
Well, the Hapsburgs had sold their daughter to him. Without them, neither Prussia nor Russia could strike.
What a sad shadow of the old BBC we have now. Katy Razzall's fine for Glastonbury but she's out of her depth here. Facing the Sun there should be only one winner. But the new hollowed out BBC is quite simply unrecognisable. Is there anthying these Tory placemen are going to leave which is worth saving?
I know so many people who have worked there (Ridley Scott and his Brother Tony to name but two). It goes much deeper than it's news departments. It's been the gold standard for decades but watching tonight I just switched off.
It's hard to imagine Tim Davie could have handled this chaos with any greater ineptitude than he has so far demonstrated.
Maybe as a Tory shill his ineptitude is part of the masterplan to destroy the BBC.
The BBC is already well past it's use by date, so will anyone care?
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
One interesting question...the BBC reporters quickly identified it was the presenter because of the phone number. Does that mean he has been doing this from his work phone, including sending abusive messages to people?
I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
I agree but it happens time and time again (e.g. the 'tractor' MP in the HoC). I wonder if the risk element is part of the buzz.
People also convince themselves that they're (A) doing nothing wrong, and/or (B) will never get in trouble for what they're doing.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
One interesting question...the BBC reporters quickly identified it was the presenter because of the phone number. Does that mean he has been doing this from his work phone, including sending abusive messages to people?
Even if its personal number to colleagues know, I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
The massive number of court cases these days that involve defendants incriminating themselves using their own phones is quite staggering. Either the police/gardai are now incapable of investigating a case unless given such assistance, or a large proportion of people are that careless.
I think one aspect of this is that people sometimes fall into such criminal behaviour gradually, and so they don't recognise that they've crossed a line, because they haven't done it in the giant leap that we can see after the event.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
Napoleon, at any point between 1805 and 1813 could have risen up from the gambling table, and collected his winnings. But, that was not in his nature.
Not exactly sure that was practical. We had already done a deal with him once with the Treaty of Amiens and it was the British who effectively reneged on it. Why should he have trusted us to do any different a second time.
I mean he was still an utter scumbag but you can kind of understand why he didn't feel he could just walk away.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
Muckrakers gonna rake muck. The Sun doesn't have a reputation to lose; the BBC does. This war is assymmetric.
What nonsense. The BBC spawned and nurtured Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, et al
It has no reputation to defend in this instance
Rarely, this whole farrago has nothing to do with the Culture Wars. It's just a toxic mix of social media, our love of salacious gossip, and the desire of media to talk about media. Nothing else
Picking a side like that *is* the culture war.
The trick is to step back and just look at facts.
For example : Hunter Biden is an example of a long line of dodgy relatives of US Presidents who embarrass their reputable family members by trying to use the power of their name in crooked schemes. Mark Thatcher and all that.
In the current matter we have allegations, counter allegations and counter counter allegations. Not many facts as yet.
To your list of the “whole farrago”, add the bizarre lifestyles of Top Talent. Which seem to be only loosely conveyed with reality.
In many ways, Donald Trump is Top Talent let loose upon the world without a script writer and director to control him. Read the wacko beliefs and ideas which seem typical in Hollyweird.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
One interesting question...the BBC reporters quickly identified it was the presenter because of the phone number. Does that mean he has been doing this from his work phone, including sending abusive messages to people?
I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
I agree but it happens time and time again (e.g. the 'tractor' MP in the HoC). I wonder if the risk element is part of the buzz.
People also convince themselves that they're (A) doing nothing wrong, and/or (B) will never get in trouble for what they're doing.
Public domain stuff about this guy's past strongly suggests which of the two groups he's in - the risk takers or the I'll be safe forever contingent.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
I guess the question there is whether there was a stable state where half of Europe was under Napoleon's control, but the other half or so - e.g. Russia and Britain - weren't?
I think there are some things where there isn't a stable halfway state. Napoleonic France seems like one of them.
Probably true, but on its face it is easy to see why people might think the bugger just didn't know when to stop.
Makes me think of General Tacticus from Discworld
"It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting bloodstained letters on the lines of: 'Dear Sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale, and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay'. The man never knew when to stop"
WRT the unnamed BBC presenter. GBeebies have a story with a silhouette of said presenter which has very clearly been outed because obvious.
As I said yesterday, this is a witch-hunt against the BBC - and with it woke lefties and all their ilk - rather than some kind of moral crusade. They want to do something - anything - to change the narrative in a way which somehow favours the Tories. Ruined lives as collateral damage? They work at the woke lefty academy don't they, so give over the "innocent" bit.
No, I don't think so.
Not everyone will agree! But I doubt that The S*n and GBeebies give a rat fuck about the "child" who is the alleged victim. They just want to bash the left, somehow hoping that they manage to turn enough people against the "woke agenda" to make the election winnable.
Big piece in the FT today (that bastion of leftie socialism) with leading Tories admitting defeat and hoping to disappear off for the summer with *something* happening to save them...
This has nothing to do with the Tories. Why are the Mirror so keen on it if it is?
If it is a witch hunt then that's because the BBC has knowingly harboured witches in the past.
Beyond that, it is clearly salacious gossip with no regard to any of the parties involved.
I find it extraordinary that some on the left are trying to pin this on the Tories
Of course the hatred of the Sun newspaper is well documented as is the loathing of the Murdoch press, the same Murdoch that Starmer was socialising with earlier this week
For me this is not political but a story about a well known BBC personality who is coming under great pressure over allegations about his behaviour
I understand Sky have a breaking news item on this for their 10.00 news
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
I guess the question there is whether there was a stable state where half of Europe was under Napoleon's control, but the other half or so - e.g. Russia and Britain - weren't?
I think there are some things where there isn't a stable halfway state. Napoleonic France seems like one of them.
Probably true, but on its face it is easy to see why people might think the bugger just didn't know when to stop.
Makes me think of General Tacticus from Discworld
"It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting bloodstained letters on the lines of: 'Dear Sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale, and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay'. The man never knew when to stop"
The Pratchett this is based on some Civil Service correspondence from the 19th cent. On receiving news that some adventuring nutter had just extended the British Empire (again), the reaction was something on the lines of “Oh for fucks sake, not again”.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
Black Lives Matter is not intent on killing you. Cecil Rhodes did not make life better-with-an-asterisk for black Africans. What else needs clearing up after wine time in the sin bin?
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
I guess the question there is whether there was a stable state where half of Europe was under Napoleon's control, but the other half or so - e.g. Russia and Britain - weren't?
I think there are some things where there isn't a stable halfway state. Napoleonic France seems like one of them.
Probably true, but on its face it is easy to see why people might think the bugger just didn't know when to stop.
Makes me think of General Tacticus from Discworld
"It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting bloodstained letters on the lines of: 'Dear Sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale, and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay'. The man never knew when to stop"
The Pratchett this is based on some Civil Service correspondence from the 19th cent. On receiving news that some adventuring nutter had just extended the British Empire (again), the reaction was something on the lines of “Oh for fucks sake, not again”.
The quip was about the purported telegram that read "PECCAVI" (I have sinned (Sindh) ).
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
I will gently remind you that the only one of the two of us who has EVER expressed any admiration for Putin is you.
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
I will gently remind you that the only one of the two of us who has EVER expressed any admiration for Putin is you.
But, but…. The Propaganda of The Deed!
Worship the Great Man with The Big Weapons, striding though the forest, biceps bared…..
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
Can you give an example please of a modern western lefty who adores Pol Pot. Present tense.
In the past tense, I know of one western government that supported Pol Pot: Margaret Thatcher's Tory one:
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
I guess the question there is whether there was a stable state where half of Europe was under Napoleon's control, but the other half or so - e.g. Russia and Britain - weren't?
I think there are some things where there isn't a stable halfway state. Napoleonic France seems like one of them.
Probably true, but on its face it is easy to see why people might think the bugger just didn't know when to stop.
Makes me think of General Tacticus from Discworld
"It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting bloodstained letters on the lines of: 'Dear Sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale, and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay'. The man never knew when to stop"
The Pratchett this is based on some Civil Service correspondence from the 19th cent. On receiving news that some adventuring nutter had just extended the British Empire (again), the reaction was something on the lines of “Oh for fucks sake, not again”.
The quip was about the purported telegram that read "PECCAVI" (I have sinned (Sindh) ).
The one I’m thinking of wasn’t Raffles/Singapore but something similar.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
Black Lives Matter is not intent on killing you. Cecil Rhodes did not make life better-with-an-asterisk for black Africans. What else needs clearing up after wine time in the sin bin?
Those parts weren't right, but there is a weird madness, even today (though not as much as decades ago), when it comes to the likes of Pol Pot, Mao and Lenin. Napoleon's not on their level, and as a nationally powerful figure of course he's celebrated, but the romanticism is also still a thing.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
I think the type of “lefty”, as you so inelegantly describe them, who has any time for those you mention would be anything but “haute bourgeois”. Your mythical “lefty friends” all appear to be SWP Trots, which is some going.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
Can you give an example please of a modern western lefty who adores Pol Pot. Present tense.
In the past tense, I know of one western government that supported Pol Pot: Margaret Thatcher's Tory one:
Pilger for one - who then promulgated the stupid lie (above) that aiding the Cambodian rebels was helping the Khymer Rouge, because of the nominal alliance of all Cambodian restinance groups to the Vietnamese. In fact, strengthening them helped put the KR leadership in prison, rather than dominating post Vietnamese occupied Cambodia.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
Napoleon, at any point between 1805 and 1813 could have risen up from the gambling table, and collected his winnings. But, that was not in his nature.
Not exactly sure that was practical. We had already done a deal with him once with the Treaty of Amiens and it was the British who effectively reneged on it. Why should he have trusted us to do any different a second time.
I mean he was still an utter scumbag but you can kind of understand why he didn't feel he could just walk away.
What we thought would not have mattered much.
I think that other European states would have settled for a France that accepted that its "natural frontiers" (Rhineland, Flanders, Wallonia, Switzerland, Savoy) were its limit, that restored the Tyrol and Lombardy/Venetia to Austria, and West Poland to Prussia.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
Its obvious from the alleged behaviour that there are going to be loads. But is it illegal to use 'dating' apps as long as both parties are of age?
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
No, using Onlyfans; paying money for pictures or whatever isn't illegal... BUT telling someone in an expletive strewn message not to identify you when you've messaged them on a dating app or site is completely beyond the pale, particularly when you've got a clause in your contract as he will have about not bringing the BBC into disrepute. Anything less than a sacking for gross misconduct is a disservice to license fee payers.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
I think the type of “lefty”, as you so inelegantly describe them, who has any time for those you mention would be anything but “haute bourgeois”. Your mythical “lefty friends” all appear to be SWP Trots, which is some going.
The English Left of the day did hugely admire Napoloen (eg Sir William Napier, William Hazlitt, Earl Grey, Lord Byron, Percy Shelley).
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
Well, I never had you as a lefty - but I did notice you adoring Putin not so long ago.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
A major celebrity gossip site on which a name has been posted many times is now down.
Probably in the guy's own best interests now that his name comes out.
My wife received a newsflash on her tablet naming the presenter and I told her not to repeat it to anyone
It looks as if social media are awash with speculation
This is fast turning into a Caroline Flack style witch-hunt.
There are a few on here tonight enthusiastic for a public stoning.
Oooh! Love a good stoning me.
I can't abide the individual in question and I despise the sold-to-the-Tory-Party-Tim-Davie-BBC, but when Sarah Vine puts the boot in, and the expose is by the very self-same publishers of lude photos of 16/17 year old Maria Whittaker and Samantha Fox, all is not right with the World.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
Well, I never had you as a lefty - but I did notice you adoring Putin not so long ago.
Thankfully most such people have undergone a damascene, or kyivian, conversion. Not all though.
Sky News - Stories now include interactions with 3 different young people re BBC presenter.
A major celebrity gossip site on which a name has been posted many times is now down.
Probably in the guy's own best interests now that his name comes out.
My wife received a newsflash on her tablet naming the presenter and I told her not to repeat it to anyone
It looks as if social media are awash with speculation
This is fast turning into a Caroline Flack style witch-hunt.
There are a few on here tonight enthusiastic for a public stoning.
Oooh! Love a good stoning me.
I can't abide the individual in question and I despise the sold-to-the-Tory-Party- Tim-Davie-BBC, but when Sarah Vine puts the boot in, and the expose is by the very self-same publishers of lude photos of 16 year old Maria Whittaker and Samantha Fox, all is not right with the Word.
Please make it stop ! The media obsession with this story is ludicrous.
We'll know it has reached it's peak when there is an hour long session entitled "Has the media's obsession with this story gone too far?" Hear from our panel of media commentators on whether the media is focusing too much on this story.
Edit: There's that old saying something about 1 dead englishman being more newsworthy than 10 dead frenchmen or 100 dead indians or the like - there must be an extension of that which is that a presenter or media personality stubbing their toe on the floor below the news reporters trumps them all.
David Yelland @davidyelland · 1m Where is Sun/BBC presenter scandal headed? My view is i) This moves to a serious debate about homophobia - this would not be a massive story if a male star used Tinder, and ii) Injunction fight as likely as sudden press conference.
The greatest irony of all: Napoleon was an absolute disaster for France. His failures led directly to the supremacy of England, the English language, an Anglophone world, the English-speaking internet, the humiliation of France in WW1 and WW2, and France, the natural hegemon of Europe, being relegated to 2nd tier status, in language and culture above all else (the most painful defeat of all)
Plus, he signed away the Louisiana Purchase. lol
Trying to spot the wood of historical good sense through the trees of anti-French and pro-British hyperbole.
French was still widely used in high society well into the 20th century (look at any pre-1914 menu, it's in French not English).
The colonial struggle was a close run thing - New Zealand, for example, could easily have ended up a French colony.
Napoleon's legacy was fear - a fear among the ruling aristocratic classes any concession toward the liberal bourgeoisie risked a new terror which would be as profoundly terminal for them as it had been for the French aristocrats including Louis XI.
The attempts of conservative rulers in Russia, Austria and Prussia to hold down the political and economic demands of new social groups created by industrialisation (we see something similar today in China) failed - the last throw of the dice was a war, victory in which would maintain the status quo. Instead, the autarchies were swept away in a revolution parallel to what happened in France but led, not by the liberal middle classes but by the Marxist inspired working classes.
Britain avoided this to a considerable extent though there was social unrest in the 19th century - the Chartists being a good example. The extension of the franchise diffused the tension as more became a direct part of democracy culminating in the radical liberal government of HH Asquith in 1906.
More astute observers than you accept what I say. Often they are French
Losing the 7 Years War was a disaster for ultimate French supremacy: leaving Britain supreme in America, India and elsewhere
But Napoleon had an enormous chance to turn it around. He was worshipped across Europe in liberal and even aristo circles (insanely, to my mind, but there it is). If he had cemented French control of Europe (eg. don't invade Russia?) he would have left French as the hegemonic global culture and English as an outlier, as Europe expanded worldwide
And if he hadn't sold half of the USA and instead developed it, half of North America might now be speaking French
And all that flows from that....
He fucked it up, in true Napoleonic style
His highs were very high. He was extraordinarily able. He's had a lasting legacy.
But we cannot really ignore the outcome for him, and France, in the aftermath.
I leave it to historians to argue what was inevitable or not (as much as anything is), but to a casual observer it seems a classic case of biting off too much to consolidate.
The weird thing about Napoleon is how much hero worship he inspires. despite being an obvious tyrant (albeit not on the scale of Hitler, Stalin or Mao) and not being quite so obviously evil in intent - along with his desire for French conquest of everywhere he did bring clear social benefits to women, urbanism, etc
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
Romanticism is to blame. Napoleon lived and ruled in time when middle class wankers loved to write panegyrics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the writers.
Yes, that's fair. The artists loved him
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
Black Lives Matter is not intent on killing you. Cecil Rhodes did not make life better-with-an-asterisk for black Africans. What else needs clearing up after wine time in the sin bin?
Those parts weren't right, but there is a weird madness, even today (though not as much as decades ago), when it comes to the likes of Pol Pot, Mao and Lenin. Napoleon's not on their level, and as a nationally powerful figure of course he's celebrated, but the romanticism is also still a thing.
Napoleon was more brilliant general who became Emperor of the French Empire than dictator and he also made major legal reforms such as the Napoleonic Code.
Please make it stop ! The media obsession with this story is ludicrous.
We'll know it has reached it's peak when there is an hour long session entitled "Has the media's obsession with this story gone too far?" Hear from our panel of media commentators on whether the media is focusing too much on this story.
Follow by an hour long session on "Has the media's obsession with the media’s obsession with this story gone too far?"
{scene - a studio}
Presenter : we have here tonight, Professor Alan Dubious of The University Of Bums on Seats. Prof. Dubious is *the* leading pioneer in TikTok studies. Dubious, your thoughts on the scandal about the scandal about the scandal?
Dubious: I haven’t used my phone for 14 seconds, so I can’t comment.
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
There are a couple of aspects that are baffling to me. One is why the current ministers are so reticent about pursuing the issue. None of them personally will have been around when the decisions were made at ministerial level that allowed this to happen, and to persist for so long, so what do they have to lose?
The second is why this isn't a much more prominent issue that arouses public anger?
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
There are a couple of aspects that are baffling to me. One is why the current ministers are so reticent about pursuing the issue. None of them personally will have been around when the decisions were made at ministerial level that allowed this to happen, and to persist for so long, so what do they have to lose?
The second is why this isn't a much more prominent issue that arouses public anger?
I think it has just dragged on for so long it's felt people are no longer that interested anymore. It is easy to forget it's still going on, but when it is brought up it boils the blood just fine, so more should be made of it.
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
There are a couple of aspects that are baffling to me. One is why the current ministers are so reticent about pursuing the issue. None of them personally will have been around when the decisions were made at ministerial level that allowed this to happen, and to persist for so long, so what do they have to lose?
The second is why this isn't a much more prominent issue that arouses public anger?
Hanging a yet undisclosed BBC presenter out to dry would appear to be of more interest to the great unwashed.
David Yelland @davidyelland · 1m Where is Sun/BBC presenter scandal headed? My view is i) This moves to a serious debate about homophobia - this would not be a massive story if a male star used Tinder, and ii) Injunction fight as likely as sudden press conference.
The Sun newspaper has spoken to a fourth younger person, a 17-year-old who at the time was still at school, who received messages from the suspended BBC presenter said to contain love hearts and kisses."
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
There are a couple of aspects that are baffling to me. One is why the current ministers are so reticent about pursuing the issue. None of them personally will have been around when the decisions were made at ministerial level that allowed this to happen, and to persist for so long, so what do they have to lose?
The second is why this isn't a much more prominent issue that arouses public anger?
Ministers are useless and have no moral compass or political sense.
Badenoch should have seized on this to show that she could get things done, put matters right and had more to her than just uttering criticisms of daft ideas. She doesn't understand that you should be in politics to try and achieve something and putting right a miscarriage of justice is one hell of an achievement.
I think the public that do know about it do feel anger. But there is also a sense of helplessness in the face of a state which seems to have lost any sense of public service, which seems capricious, incompetent and self-serving.
And journalists - well they're more interested in w**king stories about their colleagues, apparently. Nick Wallis has had to crowd fund his pursuit of this story. Computer Weekly journalists have done more real journalism than any of the so-called big names in the MSM.
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
There are a couple of aspects that are baffling to me. One is why the current ministers are so reticent about pursuing the issue. None of them personally will have been around when the decisions were made at ministerial level that allowed this to happen, and to persist for so long, so what do they have to lose?
The second is why this isn't a much more prominent issue that arouses public anger?
It’s a scandal that deeply permeates the *permanent* apparatus of government.
Politicians are semi-expendable - they lose a job, their reputation. Then they get another.
The NU10K doesn’t quite work like that - among other things, they believe that the politicians are there to protect them. This is serious stuff - threatens the Overfinch in the drive, the holiday to Bora Bora, maybe even the house itself. Big league threats.. so they will fight hard to stop it.
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
There are a couple of aspects that are baffling to me. One is why the current ministers are so reticent about pursuing the issue. None of them personally will have been around when the decisions were made at ministerial level that allowed this to happen, and to persist for so long, so what do they have to lose?
The second is why this isn't a much more prominent issue that arouses public anger?
Ministers are useless and have no moral compass or political sense.
Badenoch should have seized on this to show that she could get things done, put matters right and had more to her than just uttering criticisms of daft ideas. She doesn't understand that you should be in politics to try and achieve something and putting right a miscarriage of justice is one hell of an achievement.
I think the public that do know about it do feel anger. But there is also a sense of helplessness in the face of a state which seems to have lost any sense of public service, which seems capricious, incompetent and self-serving.
And journalists - well they're more interested in w**king stories about their colleagues, apparently. Nick Wallis has had to crowd fund his pursuit of this story. Computer Weekly journalists have done more real journalism than any of the so-called big names in the MSM.
Why aren't Labour making an issue of it? Who even is the Shadow Business Secretary?
The Sun newspaper has spoken to a fourth younger person, a 17-year-old who at the time was still at school, who received messages from the suspended BBC presenter said to contain love hearts and kisses."
Is this turning into a Kevin Spacey/Bill Cosby situation, where the initial accusation resulted in an avalanche of suppressed others, or a William Roache/Paul Gambaccini situation, where bullshitters just piled in with increasingly-implausible fictions?
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Farooq said: It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Farooq said: It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
Leon said: Yawwwwwn
HYUFD said: I am no Putin fan but Leon has some sensible points. Eastern Europe is largely still immune from wokeism and committed to traditional values and Putin encapsulates that. He also recognises climate change is real even if he wants to take action on it in a way that does not damage the Russian economy.
Remember too you can still legally be homosexual in Russia and not be arrested even if it does not have gay marriage, that is a long way from the situation in most of North Africa and the Middle East. It was also Putin's airforce which played a key role in helping Assad defeat ISIS which was of great benefit to us all
The Sun newspaper has spoken to a fourth younger person, a 17-year-old who at the time was still at school, who received messages from the suspended BBC presenter said to contain love hearts and kisses."
Is this turning into a Kevin Spacey/Bill Cosby situation, where the initial accusation resulted in an avalanche of suppressed others, or a William Roache/Paul Gambaccini situation, where bullshitters just piled in with increasingly-implausible fictions?
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Farooq said: It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
Leon said: Yawwwwwn
Putin was right. Some times evil c*nts can be right. Go figure
His accurate analysis of the West may, in fact, have led to his terrible error of invading Ukraine. He thougnt we were so weakened by this Woke shit we would not fight back
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Farooq said: It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
Leon said: Yawwwwwn
Commendations for keeping it on hand. There are a few quips from, shall we say, an account with affinity to the Leon account that I distinctly remember but I can't evidence.
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Farooq said: It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
Leon said: Yawwwwwn
Putin was right. Some times evil c*nts can be right. Go figure
His accurate analysis of the West may, in fact, have led to his terrible error of invading Ukraine. He thougnt we were so weakened by this Woke shit we would not fight back
No, he's not remotely right.
Having a healthy public debate on issues is progress and is not Bolshevism. Young generations challenging the preconceptions and prejudices of their elders is typical western liberalism, not Bolshevism.
It is western civilisation at its best, not its worst.
David Yelland doing some good commentary on the BBC story.
The BBC won't name the star but neither will The Sun. Why not? And why haven't the complainants tried to contact the BBC again? Bit confused by the homophobia bit?????
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Farooq said: It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
Leon said: Yawwwwwn
Putin was right. Some times evil c*nts can be right. Go figure
His accurate analysis of the West may, in fact, have led to his terrible error of invading Ukraine. He thougnt we were so weakened by this Woke shit we would not fight back
I wrote an entire article telling you why Putin invaded. Woke had about as much to do with it as liquorice.
Stop thinking Putin is informed by some ethical underpinnings. He's a gangster. The rationale is "see stuff take stuff". The Russians use words as tools to serve their needs, not to reveal their internal state. it doesn't matter whether it's truth, lies, or a recipie for cupcakes.
David Yelland doing some good commentary on the BBC story.
The BBC won't name the star but neither will The Sun. Why not? And why haven't the complainants tried to contact the BBC again? Bit confused by the homophobia bit?????
It's odd. I think a middle aged BBC star sending salacious messages to a 17 year old girl pretending to be 18 on Tindr would be just as big a scandal. Or almost, anyway.
The Sun newspaper has spoken to a fourth younger person, a 17-year-old who at the time was still at school, who received messages from the suspended BBC presenter said to contain love hearts and kisses."
Is this turning into a Kevin Spacey/Bill Cosby situation, where the initial accusation resulted in an avalanche of suppressed others, or a William Roache/Paul Gambaccini situation, where bullshitters just piled in with increasingly-implausible fictions?
Post Office scandal, Tory MPs censured by Commons, lots of other bad news getting squeezed out.
The latest developments in the Post Office Inquiry - yet more postponements because the Post Office still hasn't disclosed all the documents it has been ordered to - and the Nottingham maternity hospital scandal are far more important stories than the sex life of some BBC presenter.
But will be ignored. Sigh!
I fear the judge in the Post Office Inquiry is too weak and the Post Office are playing him as they did to all the other courts which have tried to hold them to account. Badenoch is doing fuck all and every day she does fuck all about this she demonstrates that she does not have what it takes to be a leader.
I am so angry about this because this is a scandal caused in great part by the legal profession and by internal investigators behaving very unprofessionally and disgracefully indeed. So it pains me to see my profession behaving so badly - not just in the events which caused this scandal - but now in the inquiry set up to find out the truth and hold them to account.
People have died. It is atrocious.
How on earth is this not contempt of court? Surely a strong judge would be banging people up at this point.
That's why I said that I fear the judge is weak. Or he thinks the government will not back him if he takes stronger action than simply yet more "I am very disappointed"statements.
The Post Office have behaved like this throughout. As an organisation they seem to have utter contempt for judges and the courts. The Board is appointed by the government. I can't help feeling that they're behaving like this because they know the government won't really take - or allow - any action to be taken against them.
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005 … the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
This will sound hyperbolic but what the state has done and is doing to these people is evil.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
All details that emerge from this story are beyond depressing, it seems to have been an utter disaster from start to finish, and it seems pretty improbable anything will be learned by those responsible, given the reactions. I know someone who was caught up in it, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, and even as someone not as badly affected as the worst were it's been a weight on them for years.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
People have served prison time, people have killed themselves. The people responsible will at worst get sacked with a golden parachute with a higher paid job to walk into the next day with a golden hello.
They should all be serving jail time for involuntary manslaughter for those that died as far up as it can be proved it goes including the minister responsible....wont fucking happen of course because those people are untouchable and lessons have been learnt or some shit like that.
One day there is going to be someone who goes fuck official justice and starts meting out his or her own
Comments
Part of the reason bosses are supposed paid the big bucks is when the shit hits the fan they have to face up to it and be open and transparent as possible.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-it-inquiry-2020/terms-of-reference
And, as you say, without the backing of the minister, inquires are fairly powerless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005
… the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.
What is outrageous is that it’s reasonably likely that some Post Office lawyers will have committed criminal offences in their roles in the whole sorry mess - and are unlikely to be subject to investigation, let alone prosecution.
I think there are some things where there isn't a stable halfway state. Napoleonic France seems like one of them.
It has no reputation to defend in this instance
Rarely, this whole farrago has nothing to do with the Culture Wars. It's just a toxic mix of social media, our love of salacious gossip, and the desire of media to talk about media. Nothing else
Breaking lockdown laws though? That's a capital offence, as we know.
Even if its personal number to colleagues know, I mean how stupid are you...if you like sending and receiving mucky pictures etc etc etc, surely you get yourself a burner phone.
The first job I had, a guy used work computers to download mucky videos. He got sent to Coventry, not metaphorically, literally as punishment. The best bit, he was an IT guy....but so bad he didn't cover his tracks in any way.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/16/do-britons-trust-press
The data are four years old, but I doubt Rolf Harris is enough to have damaged the BBC that much since, and Savile was well and truly in the public consciousness by then.
To me he seems like a militarised version of, say, Cecil Rhodes. Intent on globally expanding British influence (with some definite benefits for the locals as well as bad stuff), and highly vigorous and successful - and also brutal
No one worships Rhodes (they are more likely to look askance) yet sensible people still worship Napoloeon. It is a , mild mystery tho I suspect it is an instinctive, cringeing genuflection towards French culture, still just about discernible in the European middlebrow middle classes (and elsewhere). It is embarrasing
I know so many people who have worked there or kicked off their careers there (Ridley Scott and his Brother Tony to name but two). It goes much deeper than it's news departments. It's been the gold standard for decades but watching tonight I just switched off.
In things like defending nonces? Sorry, no, Savile explodes that (as do others)
Some years ago, a flat in the building where I lived was burgled. I asked the policeman attending if there was any chance of catching the guy.
He said, we have him already.
The way the door was broken in using a big screwdriver was unique to a chap who’d got out of prison, days before. They went round and found him with various stolen goods from several burglaries, literally in his hands.
Apparently he had done this before - commited his exact same crime, with the same signature, just after getting out of jail.
It’s contemptible that they feel the need to pay court to such an individual.
Luckily for Humanity this terrible gambling instinct is common in many tyrants, it seems. Saddam is another example, invading Kuwait. They cannot help over-reaching
Maybe as a Tory shill his ineptitude is part of the masterplan to destroy the BBC.
The BBC is already well past it's use by date, so will anyone care?
Probably in the guy's own best interests now that his name comes out.
I think one aspect of this is that people sometimes fall into such criminal behaviour gradually, and so they don't recognise that they've crossed a line, because they haven't done it in the giant leap that we can see after the event.
I mean he was still an utter scumbag but you can kind of understand why he didn't feel he could just walk away.
I've just finished a very fine book called Magnificent Rebels
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Magnificent-Rebels-First-Romantics-Invention/dp/1529392748
It's all about the amazing proto-Romantic cicle that gathered in little Jena, in Germany: Schiller, Hegel. Goethe, Schlegel, von Humboldt, and many others. It really was an extraordinary circle (of free thinking men AND woman) for its time, or any time
They nearly all adored Napoleon. This becomes poignant in the final pages when Napoleon's army invades Saxony and basically levels lovely little Jena, and STILL some of them adore him, seeking a glimpse of him through the ruins of their OWN TOWN
It is an early symptom of the haute bourgeois madness that grips modern western lefties who adore Putin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Black Lives Matter, whoeever, even when they are intent on our destruction
The trick is to step back and just look at facts.
For example : Hunter Biden is an example of a long line of dodgy relatives of US Presidents who embarrass their reputable family members by trying to use the power of their name in crooked schemes. Mark Thatcher and all that.
In the current matter we have allegations, counter allegations and counter counter allegations. Not many facts as yet.
To your list of the “whole farrago”, add the bizarre lifestyles of Top Talent. Which seem to be only loosely conveyed with reality.
In many ways, Donald Trump is Top Talent let loose upon the world without a script writer and director to control him. Read the wacko beliefs and ideas which seem typical in Hollyweird.
It looks as if social media are awash with speculation
Cargo ship towed to safety after grounding near lighthouse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-66161967
It is a media frenzy v the media
Makes me think of General Tacticus from Discworld
"It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting bloodstained letters on the lines of: 'Dear Sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale, and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay'. The man never knew when to stop"
Rupert's dad Keith, was one of the great war correspondents who exposed the disaster that was Gallipoli. What a legacy.
What will be Rupert 's legacy? Phone hacking
and the demise of the News of the World?
There are a few on here tonight enthusiastic for a public stoning.
The state owns the Post Office. Its creature imposed a flawed accounting system which invented crimes. It prosecuted people for crimes which never happened and bullied others into paying money they didn't owe. And when this was eventually uncovered it has set up a limited inquiry which is being delayed by continuing Post Office failings. It has done nothing to control the Board. Nor has it ensured an effective and timely compensation scheme.
This has caused and is continuing to cause real suffering and distress to people who placed their trust in the state and in an organization which they thought was a worthy entity delivering services to local communities. That trust has been wholly misplaced and they are now being treated with contempt and callousness.
Were I one of those unfortunates - after everything that has happened - I would not be waiting for an inquiry report. I'd be digging up flagstones ready to hurl them at the absolute ***** responsible for this.
Worship the Great Man with The Big Weapons, striding though the forest, biceps bared…..
In the past tense, I know of one western government that supported Pol Pot: Margaret Thatcher's Tory one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jan/09/cambodia
I think that other European states would have settled for a France that accepted that its "natural frontiers" (Rhineland, Flanders, Wallonia, Switzerland, Savoy) were its limit, that restored the Tyrol and Lombardy/Venetia to Austria, and West Poland to Prussia.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Stones, sir?
MANDY: Naah. They've got a lot there, lying around on the ground.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Oh, not like these, sir. Look at this. Feel the quality of that. That's craftsmanship, sir.
MANDY: Hmmm. Aah, all right. We'll have, uh, two with points and... a big flat one.
BRIAN: Could I have a flat one, Mum?
MANDY: Shh!
BRIAN: Sorry. Dad.
MANDY: Ehh, all right. Two points, ah, two flats, and a packet of gravel.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Packet of gravel. Should be a good one this afternoon.
MANDY: Hehh?
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Local boy.
MANDY: Oh, good.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Enjoy yourselves.
Inquiry reports might be very good, but if they arrive in an atmosphere that is unreceptive it is no good. The garden must be prepared for the plant.
https://youtu.be/KQEDojPZ7YI
Edit: There's that old saying something about 1 dead englishman being more newsworthy than 10 dead frenchmen or 100 dead indians or the like - there must be an extension of that which is that a presenter or media personality stubbing their toe on the floor below the news reporters trumps them all.
@davidyelland
·
1m
Where is Sun/BBC presenter scandal headed? My view is i) This moves to a serious debate about homophobia - this would not be a massive story if a male star used Tinder, and ii) Injunction fight as likely as sudden press conference.
The new Ridley Scott film in the autumn looks excellent with Joaquin Phoenix in the title role and Rupert Everett as Wellington
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpyYG0LRBrQ
{scene - a studio}
Presenter : we have here tonight, Professor Alan Dubious of The University Of Bums on Seats. Prof. Dubious is *the* leading pioneer in TikTok studies. Dubious, your thoughts on the scandal about the scandal about the scandal?
Dubious: I haven’t used my phone for 14 seconds, so I can’t comment.
The second is why this isn't a much more prominent issue that arouses public anger?
The Sun newspaper has spoken to a fourth younger person, a 17-year-old who at the time was still at school, who received messages from the suspended BBC presenter said to contain love hearts and kisses."
https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1678874273128108032
Badenoch should have seized on this to show that she could get things done, put matters right and had more to her than just uttering criticisms of daft ideas. She doesn't understand that you should be in politics to try and achieve something and putting right a miscarriage of justice is one hell of an achievement.
I think the public that do know about it do feel anger. But there is also a sense of helplessness in the face of a state which seems to have lost any sense of public service, which seems capricious, incompetent and self-serving.
And journalists - well they're more interested in w**king stories about their colleagues, apparently. Nick Wallis has had to crowd fund his pursuit of this story. Computer Weekly journalists have done more real journalism than any of the so-called big names in the MSM.
Politicians are semi-expendable - they lose a job, their reputation. Then they get another.
The NU10K doesn’t quite work like that - among other things, they believe that the politicians are there to protect them. This is serious stuff - threatens the Overfinch in the drive, the holiday to Bora Bora, maybe even the house itself. Big league threats.. so they will fight hard to stop it.
Leon said:
Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Farooq said:
It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
Leon said:
Yawwwwwn
I am no Putin fan but Leon has some sensible points. Eastern Europe is largely still immune from wokeism and committed to traditional values and Putin encapsulates that. He also recognises climate change is real even if he wants to take action on it in a way that does not damage the Russian economy.
Remember too you can still legally be homosexual in Russia and not be arrested even if it does not have gay marriage, that is a long way from the situation in most of North Africa and the Middle East. It was also Putin's airforce which played a key role in helping Assad defeat ISIS which was of great benefit to us all
His accurate analysis of the West may, in fact, have led to his terrible error of invading Ukraine. He thougnt we were so weakened by this Woke shit we would not fight back
Biden 1.54
Newsom 8.6
Kennedy 13
Harris 27
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/usa-presidential-election-2024/democratic-nominee-betting-1.178163685
Having a healthy public debate on issues is progress and is not Bolshevism. Young generations challenging the preconceptions and prejudices of their elders is typical western liberalism, not Bolshevism.
It is western civilisation at its best, not its worst.
Buy? Hmmmmmmmmmm
David Yelland doing some good commentary on the BBC story.
The BBC won't name the star but neither will The Sun. Why not? And why haven't the complainants tried to contact the BBC again? Bit confused by the homophobia bit?????
Stop thinking Putin is informed by some ethical underpinnings. He's a gangster. The rationale is "see stuff take stuff". The Russians use words as tools to serve their needs, not to reveal their internal state. it doesn't matter whether it's truth, lies, or a recipie for cupcakes.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/02/why-ukraine-was-particularly-vulnerable/
They should all be serving jail time for involuntary manslaughter for those that died as far up as it can be proved it goes including the minister responsible....wont fucking happen of course because those people are untouchable and lessons have been learnt or some shit like that.
One day there is going to be someone who goes fuck official justice and starts meting out his or her own
What a nation of curtain twitchers.
The Sun should be closed down.
“I tried to blackmail him and he turned offensive.”
No shit, Sherlock.