I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
A lawyer. Superb
Another lawyer here and I just don't understand this. Race is a protected characteristic under s9. It provides: 9 Race (1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group. The rest of the section gives a Minister the power to alter it if this is not comprehensive enough.
s39 of the Equality Act provides that you cannot be discriminated against in respect of a protected characteristic in respect of employment including hiring, terms and conditions, dismissals and discipline etc.
What, exactly is this new Act supposed to do, other than repeat the laws brought in by the Coalition in 2010 so politicians can feel good about themselves?
It has been claimed that if the issue in Birmingham had been a racial division, not sex, then the lawsuit would not have been possible.
I do not see how equal pay is not a "term and condition" of employment. It is true that the sex discrimination provisions are more longwinded but I am not convinced that they have a different effect.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
We are now one Audi e-tron GT accident away from King Harry. (and Queen You-Know-Who, LOL)
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
A lawyer. Superb
A writer of fictions. Yet more so.
I'd need a specialist to comment on the detail, but afaics the Equality Act 2010 does *not* mandate equal pay for equal work, except in the case of men & women as inherited from the Equal Pay acts. A bizarre omission in need of a tidy-up.
If they are planning changes for the EA2010, I hope they will do something about the enforcement mechanisms which were to some extent weakened in 2010, and improve third party or generic action for discrimination.
And also look at the financial risks imposed on individuals by Mr Cameron's undermining of legal aid, which imposed financial risks on complainant. Compensation is capped at £10k so no win no fee is not viable.
At present to get systemic change requires a binding precedent at Appeal Court level - that was how, for example, accessibility rules were applied to rail replacement bus services, fought tooth and nail by the industry.
There’s a longer clip which shows it more clearly. Talking about meeting someone who died 30 years ago is in a different category from mixing up two names from the present.
If that's isn't some AI deep fake CGI thingy, then the US should be having a serious word with itself about Biden being up to the job.
But it doesn't matter, according to @kinabalu because the shorter version of the clip comes from a pro-Putin account, so even tho it is true it can be ignored
There’s a longer clip which shows it more clearly. Talking about meeting someone who died 30 years ago is in a different category from mixing up two names from the present.
tbf not knowing who the French president is probably a vote-winner in the US?
Biden's problem is he looks doddery, and talks too softly, with phrases just fading away half the time. He should speak up. And should stick to the autocue.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
😅Ouch!
It's odd when non-American people say 'I figured'. It's like being transported to Dodge.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
I know he often fibs and nearly always fumbles his point, but he doesn’t make up everything
You rely on ad hominems that are really not good. You need to take some lessons from Malc, who is far above you in the quality of his insults.
Something was nagging at me the other day when reading on here. Your "debating" style reminded me of something from my childhood, but I couldn't quite remember what. Then it came back to me.
You’re right. I should try better. But do I have the talent? I’m not so sure
Perhaps if I really really work at my prose I could one day get paid for it! On really prestigious magazines?
Or even maybe write a book that goes to number 1!!! But lol. I accept that’s not me; don’t have the natural gift
Like you I toil in the anonymous mines of mediocrity and it’s ok. I’ve accepted that is my fate, as it is yours
That reminds me, you asked the other day why I was looking at the DM, but I missed it at the time. It was actually a question of prose style: someone here held up Mr Johnson as a new Addison de nos jours, a master of literature amongst writerly politicians. So I went to have a look at his latest lucubration to see what I could learn. But no, it is paywalled, so I will have to continue in the pits of humdrum.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
Are we all missing the point about the King's cancer diagnosis? It is not that he got an appointment when no-one else can. It is that his cancer was diagnosed completely by chance when he was in hospital anyway for an unrelated issue. Any of us could have the same disease and we'd not even be asking for an appointment.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I don't have a problem with relative decline - that's a good thing all round. But yes - the risk of absolute decline is very real, if we don't address the underlying issues of over-consumption, wealth concentration and capital stagnation, environmental destruction etc.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
A lawyer. Superb
Another lawyer here and I just don't understand this. Race is a protected characteristic under s9. It provides: 9 Race (1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group. The rest of the section gives a Minister the power to alter it if this is not comprehensive enough.
s39 of the Equality Act provides that you cannot be discriminated against in respect of a protected characteristic in respect of employment including hiring, terms and conditions, dismissals and discipline etc.
What, exactly is this new Act supposed to do, other than repeat the laws brought in by the Coalition in 2010 so politicians can feel good about themselves?
It has been claimed that if the issue in Birmingham had been a racial division, not sex, then the lawsuit would not have been possible.
I do not see how equal pay is not a "term and condition" of employment. It is true that the sex discrimination provisions are more longwinded but I am not convinced that they have a different effect.
I was going to put on my best employment lawyer pants and explain but came across this blog post that does so better than I could.
There’s a longer clip which shows it more clearly. Talking about meeting someone who died 30 years ago is in a different category from mixing up two names from the present.
Jesus H Fucking Christ on a Fucking Bicycle, just watched your longer clip. It is indeed even worse
He simply must not stand. Not just because he will lose to Trump because he so demented, but because he is absolutely cognitively incapable of being president
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
😅Ouch!
It's odd when non-American people say 'I figured'. It's like being transported to Dodge.
My wife is American and as a result a lot of Americanisms tend to find their way into my speech even when I'm guarding against them. Discussions about my car tend to be exclusively with her so I found myself calling the boot the "trunk" the other day.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
We are now one Audi e-tron GT accident away from King Harry. (and Queen You-Know-Who, LOL)
No, 11 year old George VII. Plus Anne the Regent.
Podgy Psycho George was also in the e-tron wrapped around a tree in my hypothesis.
He simply must not stand. Not just because he will lose to Trump because he so demented, but because he is absolutely cognitively incapable of being president
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I don't have a problem with relative decline - that's a good thing all round. But yes - the risk of absolute decline is very real, if we don't address the underlying issues of over-consumption, wealth concentration and capital stagnation, environmental destruction etc.
I am not sure what you mean by 'capital stagnation', but 3 out of 3 on misdiagnosing the issues and proposing to make the situation worse otherwise.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
😅Ouch!
It's odd when non-American people say 'I figured'. It's like being transported to Dodge.
My wife is American and as a result a lot of Americanisms tend to find their way into my speech even when I'm guarding against them. Discussions about my car tend to be exclusively with her so I found myself calling the boot the "trunk" the other day.
You are forgiven. 10 hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
A lawyer. Superb
Another lawyer here and I just don't understand this. Race is a protected characteristic under s9. It provides: 9 Race (1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group. The rest of the section gives a Minister the power to alter it if this is not comprehensive enough.
s39 of the Equality Act provides that you cannot be discriminated against in respect of a protected characteristic in respect of employment including hiring, terms and conditions, dismissals and discipline etc.
What, exactly is this new Act supposed to do, other than repeat the laws brought in by the Coalition in 2010 so politicians can feel good about themselves?
It has been claimed that if the issue in Birmingham had been a racial division, not sex, then the lawsuit would not have been possible.
I do not see how equal pay is not a "term and condition" of employment. It is true that the sex discrimination provisions are more longwinded but I am not convinced that they have a different effect.
I was going to put on my best employment lawyer pants and explain but came across this blog post that does so better than I could.
He's not only old, but he looks and acts even older than that. He's only 8 months older than Mick Jagger for fuck's sake but looks like Withers out of BG3.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I don't have a problem with relative decline - that's a good thing all round. But yes - the risk of absolute decline is very real, if we don't address the underlying issues of over-consumption, wealth concentration and capital stagnation, environmental destruction etc.
How can you reconcile those positions? Relative decline necessarily implies that billlions of people will consume more than they do now as they 'catch up'.
He's not only old, but he looks and acts even older than that. He's only 8 months older than Mick Jagger for fuck's sake but looks like Withers out of BG3.
I think @Theuniondivvie got it bang on. Biden looks like a corpse that's been embalmed by a really skilful mortician, and somehow brought back to life. Kinda
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I don't have a problem with relative decline - that's a good thing all round. But yes - the risk of absolute decline is very real, if we don't address the underlying issues of over-consumption, wealth concentration and capital stagnation, environmental destruction etc.
I am not sure what you mean by 'capital stagnation', but 3 out of 3 on misdiagnosing the issues and proposing to make the situation worse otherwise.
All of these things represent a failure to "do more with less", deliver productivity benefits, and free people up for more creative work.
The problems are very real, but they don't necessarily require the left-y-green-y shrink-the-economy solutions I guess you are imagining.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
Are we all missing the point about the King's cancer diagnosis? It is not that he got an appointment when no-one else can. It is that his cancer was diagnosed completely by chance when he was in hospital anyway for an unrelated issue. Any of us could have the same disease and we'd not even be asking for an appointment.
V true. My father had indigestion brought on by his arthritis medicine. He went to the docs who said ok we'll change the medicine oh by the way when was the last time you had a medical. 30 years ago, my father said, so they sent him for tests and found he had lung cancer. A thumbnail size thing which they whipped out and he went on to live for several more years.
That's the scary thing. We know which are the "bad" ones (cancers) and they are bad because they are usually picked up far too late.
The rarity of a cancelled meeting means an earlier lunch and a chance to join the midday debate.
Starting with Trump becoming US President again - as one of the "lefty liberals" (whatever that means apart from a pointless perjorative), I'm not hugely bothered. Yes, I would be concerned were he to deliberately undermine the fundamentals of the democratic system in the US but apart from the ranting (and we all love a good or even a bad rant one on here), I'm working on the principle he's more interested in the art of the deal.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war as someone once said and whether the first term experience has taught him anything or not I don't know but he recognises (and I do too) it's not a question of good vs evil in this world but shades of grey. Recognising and trying to get along with the likes of China, Russia and even North Korea may not make everyone comfortable but in the end we all wake up alive in the morning and that's probably the best for which you can ever hope and I think Trump is enough of a pragmatist to tone down the actual confrontation if not the rhetoric.
On then to everyone's favourite pin up, the new President of El Salvador who appears to have turned a semi-lawless country into a model of probity and safety.
Perhaps - the mass incarceration of large numbers of "suspected" gang members seems to have had an effect. He locked up 75,000 people out of a population of 6 million - to do something similar here would mean locking up 800,000 people (the current UK prison population is 95,000). How long would it take to build and staff new prisons to take the huge numbers?
That's unrealistic and Bukele has sent armed soldiers to Parliament to ensure a law was passed and has moved against top judges and other parts of the legal system.
Yet the people love it and understandably so if the streets are quieter and safer.
Do the ends therefore justify the means? That's the question - living in a free, open and democratic society means the risk of crime, the threats to safety, the challenges to order but at least you can express an opinion and vote for the party you support without fear or favour. The price of safety, the price of order may be one those accustomed to a violent society would be willing to pay but would we?
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I don't have a problem with relative decline - that's a good thing all round. But yes - the risk of absolute decline is very real, if we don't address the underlying issues of over-consumption, wealth concentration and capital stagnation, environmental destruction etc.
How can you reconcile those positions? Relative decline necessarily implies that billlions of people will consume more than they do now as they 'catch up'.
I can't - today - and It is fair to say that I should not have said "all round". We do have a problem that relative growth is largely being driven by non-renewable consumption. But we are close to a technology tipping point where that doesn't have to be the case.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
We are now one Audi e-tron GT accident away from King Harry. (and Queen You-Know-Who, LOL)
No, 11 year old George VII. Plus Anne the Regent.
Podgy Psycho George was also in the e-tron wrapped around a tree in my hypothesis.
I thought William and George were not supposed to travel in the same vehicle now?
He's not only old, but he looks and acts even older than that. He's only 8 months older than Mick Jagger for fuck's sake but looks like Withers out of BG3.
I think @Theuniondivvie got it bang on. Biden looks like a corpse that's been embalmed by a really skilful mortician, and somehow brought back to life. Kinda
I've said before - Biden comes across as sane, but incoherent. Trump comes across as coherent, but insane. Sure, Trump says weird things - but between the two I'd guess Trump is the more "with it". He is nuts, but he can string together a narrative that explains his nuts position. Biden cannot perform in a way to sell a narrative about his policies. That is the job of a politician. Beyond the ability to actually do the job of POTUS, he can't do the job of campaigning for POTUS.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
😅Ouch!
It's odd when non-American people say 'I figured'. It's like being transported to Dodge.
My wife is American and as a result a lot of Americanisms tend to find their way into my speech even when I'm guarding against them. Discussions about my car tend to be exclusively with her so I found myself calling the boot the "trunk" the other day.
I can tell my car to open and close the boot, but if I say boot it ignores me. If I say trunk it obeys me.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
Are we all missing the point about the King's cancer diagnosis? It is not that he got an appointment when no-one else can. It is that his cancer was diagnosed completely by chance when he was in hospital anyway for an unrelated issue. Any of us could have the same disease and we'd not even be asking for an appointment.
Yup. Sometimes it's just a lucky break. Win/win for Chaz. He'd still have not gone through the same as the rest of us if he'd been feeling a bit dicky and phoned the doc. I bet he doesn't have to get past the receptionist on the phone first, then have to stay by his phone in case he misses the 3 rings of the phone my quack gives it. As I say, I wish him well.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
A lawyer. Superb
Another lawyer here and I just don't understand this. Race is a protected characteristic under s9. It provides: 9 Race (1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group. The rest of the section gives a Minister the power to alter it if this is not comprehensive enough.
s39 of the Equality Act provides that you cannot be discriminated against in respect of a protected characteristic in respect of employment including hiring, terms and conditions, dismissals and discipline etc.
What, exactly is this new Act supposed to do, other than repeat the laws brought in by the Coalition in 2010 so politicians can feel good about themselves?
It has been claimed that if the issue in Birmingham had been a racial division, not sex, then the lawsuit would not have been possible.
I do not see how equal pay is not a "term and condition" of employment. It is true that the sex discrimination provisions are more longwinded but I am not convinced that they have a different effect.
I was going to put on my best employment lawyer pants and explain but came across this blog post that does so better than I could.
He's not only old, but he looks and acts even older than that. He's only 8 months older than Mick Jagger for fuck's sake but looks like Withers out of BG3.
I think @Theuniondivvie got it bang on. Biden looks like a corpse that's been embalmed by a really skilful mortician, and somehow brought back to life. Kinda
I've said before - Biden comes across as sane, but incoherent. Trump comes across as coherent, but insane. Sure, Trump says weird things - but between the two I'd guess Trump is the more "with it". He is nuts, but he can string together a narrative that explains his nuts position. Biden cannot perform in a way to sell a narrative about his policies. That is the job of a politician. Beyond the ability to actually do the job of POTUS, he can't do the job of campaigning for POTUS.
That's a pretty fair and cogent summary
Imagine the debates. OMG. It will be behind-the-sofa, shrink-your-testicles-with-cringe territory, but also a lot of laughs
The rarity of a cancelled meeting means an earlier lunch and a chance to join the midday debate.
Starting with Trump becoming US President again - as one of the "lefty liberals" (whatever that means apart from a pointless perjorative), I'm not hugely bothered. Yes, I would be concerned were he to deliberately undermine the fundamentals of the democratic system in the US but apart from the ranting (and we all love a good or even a bad rant one on here), I'm working on the principle he's more interested in the art of the deal.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war as someone once said and whether the first term experience has taught him anything or not I don't know but he recognises (and I do too) it's not a question of good vs evil in this world but shades of grey. Recognising and trying to get along with the likes of China, Russia and even North Korea may not make everyone comfortable but in the end we all wake up alive in the morning and that's probably the best for which you can ever hope and I think Trump is enough of a pragmatist to tone down the actual confrontation if not the rhetoric.
On then to everyone's favourite pin up, the new President of El Salvador who appears to have turned a semi-lawless country into a model of probity and safety.
Perhaps - the mass incarceration of large numbers of "suspected" gang members seems to have had an effect. He locked up 75,000 people out of a population of 6 million - to do something similar here would mean locking up 800,000 people (the current UK prison population is 95,000). How long would it take to build and staff new prisons to take the huge numbers?
That's unrealistic and Bukele has sent armed soldiers to Parliament to ensure a law was passed and has moved against top judges and other parts of the legal system.
Yet the people love it and understandably so if the streets are quieter and safer.
Do the ends therefore justify the means? That's the question - living in a free, open and democratic society means the risk of crime, the threats to safety, the challenges to order but at least you can express an opinion and vote for the party you support without fear or favour. The price of safety, the price of order may be one those accustomed to a violent society would be willing to pay but would we?
Just a reminder that Trump didn't write "The Art of the Deal": it was ghost-written and he has no special deal-making abilities or insight.
He's not only old, but he looks and acts even older than that. He's only 8 months older than Mick Jagger for fuck's sake but looks like Withers out of BG3.
I think @Theuniondivvie got it bang on. Biden looks like a corpse that's been embalmed by a really skilful mortician, and somehow brought back to life. Kinda
I've said before - Biden comes across as sane, but incoherent. Trump comes across as coherent, but insane. Sure, Trump says weird things - but between the two I'd guess Trump is the more "with it". He is nuts, but he can string together a narrative that explains his nuts position. Biden cannot perform in a way to sell a narrative about his policies. That is the job of a politician. Beyond the ability to actually do the job of POTUS, he can't do the job of campaigning for POTUS.
Trump is very pithy communicator. He uses short sentences and a very limited vocabulary of strong words. "Good", "Terrible", "Best', etc.
Biden has a tendency to go full Abe Simpson.
You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in zeppelins, dropping coins on people. And one day, I seen J. D. Rockefeller flyin’ by– so I run out of the house with a big washtub, and—Anyway, about my washtub. I just used it that morning to wash my turkey which in those days was known as a ‘walking bird.’ We’d always have walking bird on Thanksgiving, with all the trimmings. Cranberries, ‘injun eyes,’ and yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we’d all watch football, which in those days was called ‘baseball.'
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
The rarity of a cancelled meeting means an earlier lunch and a chance to join the midday debate.
Starting with Trump becoming US President again - as one of the "lefty liberals" (whatever that means apart from a pointless perjorative), I'm not hugely bothered. Yes, I would be concerned were he to deliberately undermine the fundamentals of the democratic system in the US but apart from the ranting (and we all love a good or even a bad rant one on here), I'm working on the principle he's more interested in the art of the deal.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war as someone once said and whether the first term experience has taught him anything or not I don't know but he recognises (and I do too) it's not a question of good vs evil in this world but shades of grey. Recognising and trying to get along with the likes of China, Russia and even North Korea may not make everyone comfortable but in the end we all wake up alive in the morning and that's probably the best for which you can ever hope and I think Trump is enough of a pragmatist to tone down the actual confrontation if not the rhetoric.
On then to everyone's favourite pin up, the new President of El Salvador who appears to have turned a semi-lawless country into a model of probity and safety.
Perhaps - the mass incarceration of large numbers of "suspected" gang members seems to have had an effect. He locked up 75,000 people out of a population of 6 million - to do something similar here would mean locking up 800,000 people (the current UK prison population is 95,000). How long would it take to build and staff new prisons to take the huge numbers?
That's unrealistic and Bukele has sent armed soldiers to Parliament to ensure a law was passed and has moved against top judges and other parts of the legal system.
Yet the people love it and understandably so if the streets are quieter and safer.
Do the ends therefore justify the means? That's the question - living in a free, open and democratic society means the risk of crime, the threats to safety, the challenges to order but at least you can express an opinion and vote for the party you support without fear or favour. The price of safety, the price of order may be one those accustomed to a violent society would be willing to pay but would we?
It's ludicrous to compare the crime situation in El Salvador with that of the UK. It was only necessary in El Salvador because their gang situation was so out of control.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It is never enough - liberals and conservatives are not happy enough having the policies they want, those on the left have to love the boot at the same time...
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Chaz is positively reverent mate. In my establishment he's usually referred to as "ole jug ears" ...
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Chaz is positively reverent mate. In my establishment he's usually referred to as "ole jug ears" ...
Yes, republicans never cease to think that being personally rude, disrespectful or unpleasant is a winning tactic for them.
In reality, of course, it's a sign of weakness and impotence: they know they haven't got a hope in hells chance, so being personally pompous, arrogant and offensive - they are are, of course, deeply selfish and publicly unspirited individuals - is all they've got to give vent to their spleen.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
Are we all missing the point about the King's cancer diagnosis? It is not that he got an appointment when no-one else can. It is that his cancer was diagnosed completely by chance when he was in hospital anyway for an unrelated issue. Any of us could have the same disease and we'd not even be asking for an appointment.
Yup. Sometimes it's just a lucky break. Win/win for Chaz. He'd still have not gone through the same as the rest of us if he'd been feeling a bit dicky and phoned the doc. I bet he doesn't have to get past the receptionist on the phone first, then have to stay by his phone in case he misses the 3 rings of the phone my quack gives it. As I say, I wish him well.
Err, he's the Head of State.
Do you think the PM or any other top public servant isn't exactly the same?
His health is a matter of national interest. The quid pro quo is he performs public duties all the time.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Mr Windsor would be about as much as I could manage, I'm afraid.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
He's not only old, but he looks and acts even older than that. He's only 8 months older than Mick Jagger for fuck's sake but looks like Withers out of BG3.
I think @Theuniondivvie got it bang on. Biden looks like a corpse that's been embalmed by a really skilful mortician, and somehow brought back to life. Kinda
I've said before - Biden comes across as sane, but incoherent. Trump comes across as coherent, but insane. Sure, Trump says weird things - but between the two I'd guess Trump is the more "with it". He is nuts, but he can string together a narrative that explains his nuts position. Biden cannot perform in a way to sell a narrative about his policies. That is the job of a politician. Beyond the ability to actually do the job of POTUS, he can't do the job of campaigning for POTUS.
Trump is very pithy communicator. He uses short sentences and a very limited vocabulary of strong words. "Good", "Terrible", "Best', etc.
Biden has a tendency to go full Abe Simpson.
You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in zeppelins, dropping coins on people. And one day, I seen J. D. Rockefeller flyin’ by– so I run out of the house with a big washtub, and—Anyway, about my washtub. I just used it that morning to wash my turkey which in those days was known as a ‘walking bird.’ We’d always have walking bird on Thanksgiving, with all the trimmings. Cranberries, ‘injun eyes,’ and yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we’d all watch football, which in those days was called ‘baseball.'
Astute. Does anyone actually listen to anything Biden says?
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
Are we all missing the point about the King's cancer diagnosis? It is not that he got an appointment when no-one else can. It is that his cancer was diagnosed completely by chance when he was in hospital anyway for an unrelated issue. Any of us could have the same disease and we'd not even be asking for an appointment.
Yup. Sometimes it's just a lucky break. Win/win for Chaz. He'd still have not gone through the same as the rest of us if he'd been feeling a bit dicky and phoned the doc. I bet he doesn't have to get past the receptionist on the phone first, then have to stay by his phone in case he misses the 3 rings of the phone my quack gives it. As I say, I wish him well.
Which reminds me. I need to phone my GP to register for their new online system which doubtless will co-exist with their 17 old online systems which make the website near-impossible to navigate.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
Who is affectionately nicknamed 'Chaz' or 'Chuck' or 'Ol' Jug Ears'. It draws into a deep British tradition of irreverence. What's the problem with it? Hardly disrespectful.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I'm not barmy, it's the little shits who are - in their usual way of plumping the depths of humanity in their desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I don’t give a flying fuck if he pegs it. I had a bit of nostalgia for the Queen. But as far as I’m concerned, Charlie can do one.
It would probably be better for the institution to get Wills and Kate in position pronto, but I think it would just prolong the inevitable.
No one beyond the elderly, the mouth-breathers and the right-wing kowtowing forelock-tuggers gives a fuck. I’m in the office today and literally not one person has mentioned it. Young people don’t care.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
Why don't you send me a private message?
We can arrange to meet up and you can try saying that to my face.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Chaz is positively reverent mate. In my establishment he's usually referred to as "ole jug ears" ...
Yes, republicans never cease to think that being personally rude, disrespectful or unpleasant is a winning tactic for them.
In reality, of course, it's a sign of weakness and impotence: they know they haven't got a hope in hells chance, so being personally pompous, arrogant and offensive - they are are, of course, deeply selfish and publicly unspirited individuals - is all they've got to give vent to their spleen.
In the face of the pomposity and arrogance of the monarchy the best response is vulgarity. Because, at the end of the day, Charles shits the same way I do. Well, maybe he has a bit more difficulty after the surgery, but the point still stands. He's just a bloke; kings are made up. I don't actually have that much against him as a person - but I do despise everything he stands for in his position as the monarch and the Crown. May the King happily fart another day.
The rarity of a cancelled meeting means an earlier lunch and a chance to join the midday debate.
Starting with Trump becoming US President again - as one of the "lefty liberals" (whatever that means apart from a pointless perjorative), I'm not hugely bothered. Yes, I would be concerned were he to deliberately undermine the fundamentals of the democratic system in the US but apart from the ranting (and we all love a good or even a bad rant one on here), I'm working on the principle he's more interested in the art of the deal.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war as someone once said and whether the first term experience has taught him anything or not I don't know but he recognises (and I do too) it's not a question of good vs evil in this world but shades of grey. Recognising and trying to get along with the likes of China, Russia and even North Korea may not make everyone comfortable but in the end we all wake up alive in the morning and that's probably the best for which you can ever hope and I think Trump is enough of a pragmatist to tone down the actual confrontation if not the rhetoric.
On then to everyone's favourite pin up, the new President of El Salvador who appears to have turned a semi-lawless country into a model of probity and safety.
Perhaps - the mass incarceration of large numbers of "suspected" gang members seems to have had an effect. He locked up 75,000 people out of a population of 6 million - to do something similar here would mean locking up 800,000 people (the current UK prison population is 95,000). How long would it take to build and staff new prisons to take the huge numbers?
That's unrealistic and Bukele has sent armed soldiers to Parliament to ensure a law was passed and has moved against top judges and other parts of the legal system.
Yet the people love it and understandably so if the streets are quieter and safer.
Do the ends therefore justify the means? That's the question - living in a free, open and democratic society means the risk of crime, the threats to safety, the challenges to order but at least you can express an opinion and vote for the party you support without fear or favour. The price of safety, the price of order may be one those accustomed to a violent society would be willing to pay but would we?
It's ludicrous to compare the crime situation in El Salvador with that of the UK. It was only necessary in El Salvador because their gang situation was so out of control.
But perhaps it’s best to go Full Salvador BEFORE the gangs exert a terrible grip, raping and murdering thousands
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I'm not barmy, it's the little shits who are - in their usual way of plumping the depths of humanity in their desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
Calling the King "Chaz" is not "plumbing the depths of humanity in [a] desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible" and if you think it is, then you badly need some help.
Personally, I wish Chaz all the best and hope he makes a full recovery soon, he's not a bad type all in all.
The bitter joke, under Yeltsin was "Old people remember - under Stalin, there was food and there was order. What do they want? Lots of food and lots of order."
That one came true....
To an extent, old people always remember that it was great fifty years ago.... but that's because: 1. They were young, and had their health and youth; 2. Survivor bias
I'm sure the millions who were killed in the Holodomor, had they been able to tell you, would've said that the 1990s in Russia were better than the 1930s.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I don’t give a flying fuck if he pegs it. I had a bit of nostalgia for the Queen. But as far as I’m concerned, Charlie can do one.
It would probably be better for the institution to get Wills and Kate in position pronto, but I think it would just prolong the inevitable.
No one beyond the elderly, the mouth-breathers and the right-wing kowtowing forelock-tuggers gives a fuck. I’m in the office today and literally not one person has mentioned it. Young people don’t care.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I'm not barmy, it's the little shits who are - in their usual way of plumping the depths of humanity in their desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
I wouldn't get so exercised by it. If you think about it what is bonkers is having a Royal Family at all. I mean I would vote to keep it if only to avoid the turmoil of everyone having to pick me to be Head of State. But it is a ridiculous system but it's our system so we go with it but it is certainly open to ridicule and criticism.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
Why don't you send me a private message?
We can arrange to meet up and you can try saying that to my face.
What the actual fuck are you doing? Calling out an anonymous poster *for a fight* because you dislike what he said about King Chaz?
I for one object to what he posted - no smashing of crowns please they are fantastic tourist attractions, and will remain so long after we get bored of the royal family.
The Crown was kinda interesting at the start and tailed off into meh until most of who used to watch it said no. Bit like the House of Windsor itself.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
Why don't you send me a private message?
We can arrange to meet up and you can try saying that to my face.
Did you just ask someone for a fight?!????!? Seriously?
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I'm not barmy, it's the little shits who are - in their usual way of plumping the depths of humanity in their desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
Calling the King "Chaz" is not "plumbing the depths of humanity in [a] desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible" and if you think it is, then you badly need some help.
Personally, I wish Chaz all the best and hope he makes a full recovery soon, he's not a bad type all in all.
He's Chaz in this household too and there's no malice in that whatsoever.
Anyway, surely he should just be HM if we're being formal?
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Chaz is positively reverent mate. In my establishment he's usually referred to as "ole jug ears" ...
Yes, republicans never cease to think that being personally rude, disrespectful or unpleasant is a winning tactic for them.
In reality, of course, it's a sign of weakness and impotence: they know they haven't got a hope in hells chance, so being personally pompous, arrogant and offensive - they are are, of course, deeply selfish and publicly unspirited individuals - is all they've got to give vent to their spleen.
Public disrespect for the Monarch has been going since the 18th century and is a great British tradition. Suppressing it would be extremely Orwellian.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
Why don't you send me a private message?
We can arrange to meet up and you can try saying that to my face.
I'm trying, but alas:
But so that we aren't posting notes behind the back of the rest of the class my message was:
"Name a time and place - happy to pay for tea and biscuits to hear why good ole Charley deserves all the spittle you leave on his knob."
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
Why don't you send me a private message?
We can arrange to meet up and you can try saying that to my face.
Did you just ask someone for a fight?!????!? Seriously?
Pistols for two upon Hyde Park. Breakfast for one at Simpsons.
I've always admired the polite savagery in that expression....
I read @Leon raving on about Biden having dementia. That's probably an exaggeration, but he certainly has senior moments.
But remember - the alternative is Trump. Who has his own senior moments. His own infirmities. And is verging on the fascist.
"Biden has dementia". Yes, but the alternative is Trump. Who also shows signs of dementia. And is sociop[athic.
So what is Leon's point exactly? Vote Trump? Why not just say so?
I’m amazed you’re a fat bastard given how much energy you must expend working up to these pointless hourly rants
Sir makes a living posting rants on the Spectator and then entertaining us on here with AI WOKE ALIENS etc
Answer my point. Biden is a *terrible* choice of candidate. But Trump is worse. So they have a choice of a really old dude with early onset dementia or another really old dude with early onset dementia and eyes on becoming dictator.
If your argument is that they should both go, then I am in full agreement. But you can't finger one side's candidate for being semi-gaga when the other side's candidate is the same.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I'm not barmy, it's the little shits who are - in their usual way of plumping the depths of humanity in their desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I'm not barmy, it's the little shits who are - in their usual way of plumping the depths of humanity in their desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
On a personal level for the Windsors, it's a tragedy, of course it is. But if he doesn't make it, there's a long line of succession that will produce another monarch as soon as he breathes his last. Same as Prime Ministers or top civil servants. I have empathy for them, but don't really feel sympathy. Chaz is getting bomb proof care. My sister was diagnosed with extensive throat cancer in September and is going through treatment now. If she doesn't make, I can't magic up a replacement sister. I'd rather my sister was getting the treatment Chaz is getting, but she never will, so I can comment on the difference between her car and Chaz's differing situations. I genuinely don't care if Chaz makes it or not or if a PM gets sick and kharks it. There will be another in position soon after. Maybe I'm just a horrible bastard. Probably.
I read @Leon raving on about Biden having dementia. That's probably an exaggeration, but he certainly has senior moments.
But remember - the alternative is Trump. Who has his own senior moments. His own infirmities. And is verging on the fascist.
"Biden has dementia". Yes, but the alternative is Trump. Who also shows signs of dementia. And is sociop[athic.
So what is Leon's point exactly? Vote Trump? Why not just say so?
I’m amazed you’re a fat bastard given how much energy you must expend working up to these pointless hourly rants
Sir makes a living posting rants on the Spectator and then entertaining us on here with AI WOKE ALIENS etc
Answer my point. Biden is a *terrible* choice of candidate. But Trump is worse. So they have a choice of a really old dude with early onset dementia or another really old dude with early onset dementia and eyes on becoming dictator.
If your argument is that they should both go, then I am in full agreement. But you can't finger one side's candidate for being semi-gaga when the other side's candidate is the same.
If nothing else, Biden's version of Really Ancient Dude lives up to his promise to the Republicans that he wouldn't cause everyone to cringe every time he did or said something.
I read @Leon raving on about Biden having dementia. That's probably an exaggeration, but he certainly has senior moments.
But remember - the alternative is Trump. Who has his own senior moments. His own infirmities. And is verging on the fascist.
"Biden has dementia". Yes, but the alternative is Trump. Who also shows signs of dementia. And is sociop[athic.
So what is Leon's point exactly? Vote Trump? Why not just say so?
People are misusing the D word. Neither Trump nor Biden would fail a dementia test. But as you say, it's about the choice and there is no choice really. Because only one of them means well.
Trump is the more "with it". He is nuts, but he can string together a narrative that explains his nuts position.
He really can't.
He thinks he beat Obama in the election for a start
Sure - his reality is completely untrue. Barmy. But he can explain it. He can weave a narrative to sell it. He can communicate it.
I believe that Biden probably knows what material reality he lives in (although some recent comments make me doubt that too). But every time he opens his mouth moths fly out and he fails to convince anyone of anything.
Did you just ask someone for a fight?!????!? Seriously?
I waited in the Costa car park at the Heston services on the M4 for two fucking hours last time. #wontgetfooledagain
Last time I got into a serious fight with someone was in 1983 behind the Spar supermarket next to Kennet Valley Primary School and I broke someone's nose swinging my plastic Snoopy Lunchbox into his face. Other than inevitable handbags on a rugby field managed to avoid it since then. All seems a bit unpleasant for a limited payoff.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
*INTERVENTION*
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
I'm not barmy, it's the little shits who are - in their usual way of plumping the depths of humanity in their desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
Calling the King "Chaz" is not "plumbing the depths of humanity in [a] desire to display the most atrocious behaviour possible" and if you think it is, then you badly need some help.
Personally, I wish Chaz all the best and hope he makes a full recovery soon, he's not a bad type all in all.
He's Chaz in this household too and there's no malice in that whatsoever.
Anyway, surely he should just be HM if we're being formal?
I call him Charlie-boy. Wouldn't want to jinx him by calling him Ch*rles followed by odd number - we all know what happens to odd-numbered Ch*rleses
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Stop being such a pompous arse. Who appointed you as guardian of royal protocol? You are the bizarre love child of Nick Witcher and Alan Partridge.
In that clip Biden also refers to a "G7 meeting of all the NATO leaders" so he's even got that mixed up.
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s on Biden’s watch that Russia and Iran have been emboldened. Re-electing him might be the more dangerous option for the stability of the world.
The rarity of a cancelled meeting means an earlier lunch and a chance to join the midday debate.
Starting with Trump becoming US President again - as one of the "lefty liberals" (whatever that means apart from a pointless perjorative), I'm not hugely bothered. Yes, I would be concerned were he to deliberately undermine the fundamentals of the democratic system in the US but apart from the ranting (and we all love a good or even a bad rant one on here), I'm working on the principle he's more interested in the art of the deal.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war as someone once said and whether the first term experience has taught him anything or not I don't know but he recognises (and I do too) it's not a question of good vs evil in this world but shades of grey. Recognising and trying to get along with the likes of China, Russia and even North Korea may not make everyone comfortable but in the end we all wake up alive in the morning and that's probably the best for which you can ever hope and I think Trump is enough of a pragmatist to tone down the actual confrontation if not the rhetoric.
On then to everyone's favourite pin up, the new President of El Salvador who appears to have turned a semi-lawless country into a model of probity and safety.
Perhaps - the mass incarceration of large numbers of "suspected" gang members seems to have had an effect. He locked up 75,000 people out of a population of 6 million - to do something similar here would mean locking up 800,000 people (the current UK prison population is 95,000). How long would it take to build and staff new prisons to take the huge numbers?
That's unrealistic and Bukele has sent armed soldiers to Parliament to ensure a law was passed and has moved against top judges and other parts of the legal system.
Yet the people love it and understandably so if the streets are quieter and safer.
Do the ends therefore justify the means? That's the question - living in a free, open and democratic society means the risk of crime, the threats to safety, the challenges to order but at least you can express an opinion and vote for the party you support without fear or favour. The price of safety, the price of order may be one those accustomed to a violent society would be willing to pay but would we?
It's ludicrous to compare the crime situation in El Salvador with that of the UK. It was only necessary in El Salvador because their gang situation was so out of control.
If you actually read what I said, I wasn't comparing like with like.
El Salvador was clearly a society where law and order had broken down to a considerable extent - one can argue the whys and wherefores, corruption being the most obvious? Bukele has come along and after 80 people were killed in a weekend decided enough was enough and mobilised the army and police to basically take the gangs off the streets.
The incarceration of more than 1% of the population in a weekend is no mean feat and it seems to have had the desired effect in terms of reducing levels of murders and presumably other crimes as well.
Do the ends justify the means? What happens to the 75,000 incarcerated? We know rates of recidivism are very high among those who've been in prison - put 75,000 gang members in prison and the chances are you're building an army who may one day escape and wreak their revenge on you and your society.
This is why I don't support the adoration some on here have for Bukele but I understand it - if all you want is to live on ordered streets without substantial fear of being attacked, robbed or worse and the price of that is no say in the way your society is run or develops would you pay that price?
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
Comments
If they are planning changes for the EA2010, I hope they will do something about the enforcement mechanisms which were to some extent weakened in 2010, and improve third party or generic action for discrimination.
And also look at the financial risks imposed on individuals by Mr Cameron's undermining of legal aid, which imposed financial risks on complainant. Compensation is capped at £10k so no win no fee is not viable.
At present to get systemic change requires a binding precedent at Appeal Court level - that was how, for example, accessibility rules were applied to rail replacement bus services, fought tooth and nail by the industry.
And, yes, here Leon is wibbling!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwZYAJ3sFYo
tbf not knowing who the French president is probably a vote-winner in the US?
Biden's problem is he looks doddery, and talks too softly, with phrases just fading away half the time. He should speak up. And should stick to the autocue.
https://rangeofreasonableresponses.com/2024/02/04/labours-plans-for-discrimination-law/?mc_cid=c544259da4
He simply must not stand. Not just because he will lose to Trump because he so demented, but because he is absolutely cognitively incapable of being president
The problems are very real, but they don't necessarily require the left-y-green-y shrink-the-economy solutions I guess you are imagining.
That's the scary thing. We know which are the "bad" ones (cancers) and they are bad because they are usually picked up far too late.
The rarity of a cancelled meeting means an earlier lunch and a chance to join the midday debate.
Starting with Trump becoming US President again - as one of the "lefty liberals" (whatever that means apart from a pointless perjorative), I'm not hugely bothered. Yes, I would be concerned were he to deliberately undermine the fundamentals of the democratic system in the US but apart from the ranting (and we all love a good or even a bad rant one on here), I'm working on the principle he's more interested in the art of the deal.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war as someone once said and whether the first term experience has taught him anything or not I don't know but he recognises (and I do too) it's not a question of good vs evil in this world but shades of grey. Recognising and trying to get along with the likes of China, Russia and even North Korea may not make everyone comfortable but in the end we all wake up alive in the morning and that's probably the best for which you can ever hope and I think Trump is enough of a pragmatist to tone down the actual confrontation if not the rhetoric.
On then to everyone's favourite pin up, the new President of El Salvador who appears to have turned a semi-lawless country into a model of probity and safety.
Perhaps - the mass incarceration of large numbers of "suspected" gang members seems to have had an effect. He locked up 75,000 people out of a population of 6 million - to do something similar here would mean locking up 800,000 people (the current UK prison population is 95,000). How long would it take to build and staff new prisons to take the huge numbers?
That's unrealistic and Bukele has sent armed soldiers to Parliament to ensure a law was passed and has moved against top judges and other parts of the legal system.
Yet the people love it and understandably so if the streets are quieter and safer.
Do the ends therefore justify the means? That's the question - living in a free, open and democratic society means the risk of crime, the threats to safety, the challenges to order but at least you can express an opinion and vote for the party you support without fear or favour. The price of safety, the price of order may be one those accustomed to a violent society would be willing to pay but would we?
As I say, I wish him well.
Imagine the debates. OMG. It will be behind-the-sofa, shrink-your-testicles-with-cringe territory, but also a lot of laughs
Biden has a tendency to go full Abe Simpson.
You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in zeppelins, dropping coins on people. And one day, I seen J. D. Rockefeller flyin’ by– so I run out of the house with a big washtub, and—Anyway, about my washtub. I just used it that morning to wash my turkey which in those days was known as a ‘walking bird.’ We’d always have walking bird on Thanksgiving, with all the trimmings. Cranberries, ‘injun eyes,’ and yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we’d all watch football, which in those days was called ‘baseball.'
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
He thinks he beat Obama in the election for a start
In reality, of course, it's a sign of weakness and impotence: they know they haven't got a hope in hells chance, so being personally pompous, arrogant and offensive - they are are, of course, deeply selfish and publicly unspirited individuals - is all they've got to give vent to their spleen.
Mate you seem to have become a teeny bit barmy since "the news".
I would try not to get so upset at peoples' use of whatever words they want to describe KCIII.
It does not diminish the love you have for your monarch, nor your unwavering patriotism.
But remember - the alternative is Trump. Who has his own senior moments. His own infirmities. And is verging on the fascist.
"Biden has dementia". Yes, but the alternative is Trump. Who also shows signs of dementia. And is sociop[athic.
So what is Leon's point exactly? Vote Trump? Why not just say so?
Do you think the PM or any other top public servant isn't exactly the same?
His health is a matter of national interest. The quid pro quo is he performs public duties all the time.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
But, you are right. Abuse and disrespect is all they have and I should let it speak for itself.
It would probably be better for the institution to get Wills and Kate in position pronto, but I think it would just prolong the inevitable.
No one beyond the elderly, the mouth-breathers and the right-wing kowtowing forelock-tuggers gives a fuck. I’m in the office today and literally not one person has mentioned it. Young people don’t care.
We can arrange to meet up and you can try saying that to my face.
Might save time
Personally, I wish Chaz all the best and hope he makes a full recovery soon, he's not a bad type all in all.
1. They were young, and had their health and youth;
2. Survivor bias
I'm sure the millions who were killed in the Holodomor, had they been able to tell you, would've said that the 1990s in Russia were better than the 1930s.
I for one object to what he posted - no smashing of crowns please they are fantastic tourist attractions, and will remain so long after we get bored of the royal family.
The Crown was kinda interesting at the start and tailed off into meh until most of who used to watch it said no. Bit like the House of Windsor itself.
Anyway, surely he should just be HM if we're being formal?
But so that we aren't posting notes behind the back of the rest of the class my message was:
"Name a time and place - happy to pay for tea and biscuits to hear why good ole Charley deserves all the spittle you leave on his knob."
I've always admired the polite savagery in that expression....
Answer my point. Biden is a *terrible* choice of candidate. But Trump is worse. So they have a choice of a really old dude with early onset dementia or another really old dude with early onset dementia and eyes on becoming dictator.
If your argument is that they should both go, then I am in full agreement. But you can't finger one side's candidate for being semi-gaga when the other side's candidate is the same.
A few happened also.
Unlike this one.
My sister was diagnosed with extensive throat cancer in September and is going through treatment now. If she doesn't make, I can't magic up a replacement sister. I'd rather my sister was getting the treatment Chaz is getting, but she never will, so I can comment on the difference between her car and Chaz's differing situations.
I genuinely don't care if Chaz makes it or not or if a PM gets sick and kharks it. There will be another in position soon after.
Maybe I'm just a horrible bastard. Probably.
Goodbye.
I believe that Biden probably knows what material reality he lives in (although some recent comments make me doubt that too). But every time he opens his mouth moths fly out and he fails to convince anyone of anything.
This is what happens when we have thread headers about electoral systems. As sure as B follows A.
I was sure that someone would go off on one about red tape bonfires, JRM etc etc.
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s on Biden’s watch that Russia and Iran have been emboldened. Re-electing him might be the more dangerous option for the stability of the world.
El Salvador was clearly a society where law and order had broken down to a considerable extent - one can argue the whys and wherefores, corruption being the most obvious? Bukele has come along and after 80 people were killed in a weekend decided enough was enough and mobilised the army and police to basically take the gangs off the streets.
The incarceration of more than 1% of the population in a weekend is no mean feat and it seems to have had the desired effect in terms of reducing levels of murders and presumably other crimes as well.
Do the ends justify the means? What happens to the 75,000 incarcerated? We know rates of recidivism are very high among those who've been in prison - put 75,000 gang members in prison and the chances are you're building an army who may one day escape and wreak their revenge on you and your society.
This is why I don't support the adoration some on here have for Bukele but I understand it - if all you want is to live on ordered streets without substantial fear of being attacked, robbed or worse and the price of that is no say in the way your society is run or develops would you pay that price?
That cannot stand.
Perhaps, because if his vein of thinking had been adopted, there would have been a lot less dead people for a similar result.