Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Referendum blues – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited March 25 in General
Referendum blues – politicalbetting.com

"It was our responsibility to convince the majority of people to vote yes and we clearly failed to do so."Irish PM Leo Varadkar spoke to reporters following the governments defeat in twin referendums on changing the country's constitution.https://t.co/oALM8y0EOS? Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/nonhrtqanj

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    OT straight away. Fell asleep in front of the computer; woke up to find a new topic and that I'd slept through the Oscars.

    Congratulations to @Roger for more successful tips, in particular Poor Things.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    On topic, thanks for the header, Cyclefree. I was only vaguely aware of the Irish referendums which seemed a bit pointless, and the header reinforces this impression. On the question of who benefits, or would have done, unmarried couples would have been one group. If starting from a different place, as we would be in Britain, can you imagine a campaign to say unmarried families were second class citizens? The leak of the Attorney General's advice on legal uncertainties probably increased No votes.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,758
    Thanks @Cyclefree - I find it quite a strange issue and, as you say, there needs to be tangible benefits of such a change. Undoubtedly a downside of referenda is the potential for disaffected voters to use it as a free-hit on the government. The danger of that seems especially high with something like this.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    edited March 11

    OT straight away. Fell asleep in front of the computer; woke up to find a new topic and that I'd slept through the Oscars.

    Congratulations to @Roger for more successful tips, in particular Poor Things.

    Poor Things and The Zone of Interest.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    Labour's found a new policy angle: The Oscars!

    Nearly half of UK award nominees in last decade were privately educated
    Labour analysis finds 40% of Britons nominated for main prizes at major cultural awards went to private school

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/10/uk-award-nominees-privately-educated-labour-analysis
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460

    Labour's found a new policy angle: The Oscars!

    Nearly half of UK award nominees in last decade were privately educated
    Labour analysis finds 40% of Britons nominated for main prizes at major cultural awards went to private school

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/10/uk-award-nominees-privately-educated-labour-analysis

    Surprised its only 40%. The cliche of the upper class luvvie has a lot of basis to it.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    Paul Giametti robbed again.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    When a film is trending it will get nominations for things that don't even make sense. I liked Poor Things and am not surprised it won several Oscars, but one of its nominations was for best original score, when it had one of the most gratingly irritating and intrusive scores I'd ever heard in my life.

    Anyone surprised Barbie was nominated less and lost out to a successful WW2 based biopic doesn't know the Academy.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    edited March 11
    kle4 said:

    Labour's found a new policy angle: The Oscars!

    Nearly half of UK award nominees in last decade were privately educated
    Labour analysis finds 40% of Britons nominated for main prizes at major cultural awards went to private school

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/10/uk-award-nominees-privately-educated-labour-analysis

    Surprised its only 40%. The cliche of the upper class luvvie has a lot of basis to it.
    They've got the connections. More subtly, if your boarding school produces a dozen or more school and house plays in a year, then children get the chance to appreciate the roar of the crowd, and to see if they like it and are any good. Likewise music, with the chance to learn any instrument.

    In an unusually personal intervention, [Keir Starmer] added: “Growing up in a working-class household, the opportunity to learn an instrument gave me benefits far beyond the music. It gave me the confidence to kick on, and the drive to achieve.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/10/uk-award-nominees-privately-educated-labour-analysis
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    Interesting article by Cyclefree.

    I'm not sure I get the importance of the 'undemocratic' lesson in this context, though, given the referendum simply rejected the amendments in question.
    Problems about the relationship between that state and NGOs are perhaps food for a separate debate.

    As far as the constitution is concerned, the existing parts which were the subject of debate could certainly do with another look at some point.

    Personally I'd advocate for something along the lines of the U.S. Equal Rights Amendment, which is far simpler and clearer in its aim.
    "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
    Still not ratified, of course.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    A good article, thanks, Ms Free.

    I'd quibble on something though: families have always been founded on more than 'marriage'. That may be the norm; it *may* even be the ideal; but marriage should probably not be seen as a 'foundation'.

    There have always been single mothers; less commonly, there have always been single dads. There have been cohabiting couples who do not want to go through the rules forced on them by a religion that has caused so much harm. They can still be 'families', and should be seen as such by society and the law.

    To see this, just ask a simple question: can you have a family without marriage? If the answer is yes, then removal of the clause is fine. If no, then you are telling many people they are not a 'family'.

    As for the word 'women' being removed: if the clause gave women more power, it should be kept. If the clause gave them less power, or was restrictive, then it shouldn't really be in, should it?

    In the case of Article 41.2.2°, this seems utterly restrictive towards women. It is a very unequal clause.

    All of these clauses seem somewhat archaic and based in a historic view of the world that was incompatible with reality even when they were written.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    edited March 11
    TSE should steer clear of newsagents this morning, for the sake of his blood pressure.


    "it's a book written from a humorous perspective, it's deliberately in bad faith, arrogant, chauvinistic and so on," Cerquiglini told AFP.

    Beneath the provocative title and humour, the prominent academic hopes to convey the cross-Channel linguistic tangle since the Norman conquest of 1066 -- and how ridiculous French resistance to "anglicisms" can be.

    "You can also see my book as an homage to the English language, which has been able to adopt so many words... Viking, Danish, French, it's astonishing," Cerquiglini said.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/english-just-badly-pronounced-french-023325692.html
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    CPS lawyers in England and Wales trivialise teen sexual abuse, report says
    Exclusive: Independent examination of rape prosecutions hears lawyers are ‘obsessed’ with credibility of victims and use victim-blaming language
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/11/cps-lawyers-in-england-and-wales-trivialise-teen-sexual-abuse-report-says
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690
    edited March 11
    Thanks to Cyclefree for yet another informative, thoughtful and timely PB posting.

    The geographical breakdown of voting results by Dáil constituency lends some support to some of her argument.

    By Province/EU Region - proposed Amendment 39 - Family Referendum

    Dublin 39.4%
    Leinster 32.1%
    Munster 32.0%
    Connacht-U 25.0%
    Total 32.3%

    > Amendment 39 (trends for Amendment 40 similar) did best (very relatively speaking) in Dublin City and (former) County, the most urban/suburbanized part of the Republic. In cluster of four southeast Dublin constituencies (Dublin 6 postal code area) with highest socio-economics and socio-political progressivism, Amend 39 got over 49% of the vote, including a very slight +250 majority in Dún Laoghaire ("Kingston" to British Empire Loyalist PBers). By contrast, Yes was less robust in the central city, and even worse out in more downmarket urban/suburban fringe west & southwestern Dublin.

    > Beyond the Great Wen of the Emerald Isle, the Amend 39 Yes % in Leinster AND Munster mirrored the national average. However, Yes ran better (again relatively speaking) in areas like exurban Kildare North (40.2%) and urban Cork Southcentral (38.6%) than in rural constituencies such as Galway East (28.0%), Meath West (28.1%) and Kerry (28.7%).

    > Underlining the urban/rural, affluent/not-so-much split, Amendment 39 achieved (in a manner of speaking) it's electoral abyss in the wilds of Connacht and fringes of Ulster (oustide NI). Yes did "best" in Limerick City (31.7%) and hit rock bottom in my own ancestral stomping grounds on the edge of creation in County Donegal (19.8%).
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,326
    I have been following the referendum not one jot, so thank you @Cyclefree for the article. From the wording I assume it was meant to benefit non-conventional families with zero or more than one woman as carer: single fathers, gay male couples, gay female couples, cases where the carer was a man, etc. Your point that "The Family amendment was described as removing “sexist language”. So what?" is illuminating: in previous years the assertion that something was sexist would have been sufficient to reject it, but now it appears not.

    Ireland has a written constitution and any amendments must be supported by referenda. It's a system we know of but consider little, discussing only when it intersects with us or our interests. I think countries such as Ireland and Switzerland with that system are fortunate.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690

    TSE should steer clear of newsagents this morning, for the sake of his blood pressure.


    "it's a book written from a humorous perspective, it's deliberately in bad faith, arrogant, chauvinistic and so on," Cerquiglini told AFP.

    Beneath the provocative title and humour, the prominent academic hopes to convey the cross-Channel linguistic tangle since the Norman conquest of 1066 -- and how ridiculous French resistance to "anglicisms" can be.

    "You can also see my book as an homage to the English language, which has been able to adopt so many words... Viking, Danish, French, it's astonishing," Cerquiglini said.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/english-just-badly-pronounced-french-023325692.html

    For purposes of pronunciation comparison, tending to support the thesis:

    Monty Python and The Holy Grail - Insulting Frenchman
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Smoke 'em IF ya got 'em.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690
    Note that the urban versus rural divide documented by results of 2024 Irish constitutional referendums, follows a longstanding pattern established over the decades, including in past votes on divorce and abortion.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Some people have quasi-religious rites when it comes to tea and coffee. A friend washes a tea cup out three or five times with hot water, before leaving boiling water in the cups 'to allow the cups to warm'. She then empties the water and pours the tea.

    Likewise, an old boss of mine had a really expensive coffee machine, and treated coffee-making as almost a religious experience. He would also get into heated discussions (non-seriously) with another caffeine addict who used a rival machine.

    I just don't get it. The expensive coffee often tastes like sh*t anyway.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    edited March 11

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Some people have quasi-religious rites when it comes to tea and coffee. A friend washes a tea cup out three or five times with hot water, before leaving boiling water in the cups 'to allow the cups to warm'. She then empties the water and pours the tea.

    Likewise, an old boss of mine had a really expensive coffee machine, and treated coffee-making as almost a religious experience. He would also get into heated discussions (non-seriously) with another caffeine addict who used a rival machine.

    I just don't get it. The expensive coffee often tastes like sh*t anyway.
    I got in serious trouble at work because I forgot to wet the filter paper.

    Aeropress is great, particularly when camping. Has improved my life almost as much as my electric toothbrush.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    Another airline not to fly with:

    "Indonesia's Batik Air faces probe after pilots fall asleep mid-flight"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68488416

    AIUI the railways have been doing some research into quality of rest as well as required rest times between shifts.

    It also reminds me of the 1892 Thirsk Crash, where a signalman was forced to work despite being in no state to:

    "Holmes was charged with manslaughter and found guilty, but was given an absolute discharge upon the strong recommendation of the jury, who were sympathetic to Holmes' personal tragedy; public opinion was also in Holmes' favour"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1892_Thirsk_rail_crash
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,029
    Well, I can think of one area to start with..


  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157

    Well, I can think of one area to start with..


    Kensington Palace's PR team?
  • Options

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    Or get a machine that does bean to cup. Its more expensive than a pod machine up-front, but over time it costs much, much less to operate as you can get great quality coffee straight from the beans without being tied into any pod company for ongoing costs.

    Bit like Vimes and his shoes.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735

    Another airline not to fly with:

    "Indonesia's Batik Air faces probe after pilots fall asleep mid-flight"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68488416

    AIUI the railways have been doing some research into quality of rest as well as required rest times between shifts.

    It also reminds me of the 1892 Thirsk Crash, where a signalman was forced to work despite being in no state to:

    "Holmes was charged with manslaughter and found guilty, but was given an absolute discharge upon the strong recommendation of the jury, who were sympathetic to Holmes' personal tragedy; public opinion was also in Holmes' favour"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1892_Thirsk_rail_crash

    There’s been a fair bit of research into rest with regard to pilots, considering duty times, shift patterns, and dealing with fatigue.

    https://www.flyingmag.com/controlled-rest-best-practices-guide/

    Pilots falling asleep happens more frequently than one might imagine!
  • Options

    Likewise, an old boss of mine had a really expensive coffee machine, and treated coffee-making as almost a religious experience. He would also get into heated discussions (non-seriously) with another caffeine addict who used a rival machine.

    Being serious, decent coffee can be made from almost any machine other than a kettle.

    Good quality coffee requires pressure to make, pressure you can't get from a kettle and can get from almost any other machine. That's [part of the] reason why instant is ****.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735
    A whole load of Russian fake news sites have popped up in the US in the past few weeks, often posing as local or regional newspapers, but carefully inserting Russian propoganda in among the real stories.

    https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/03/10/2213245/mock-news-sites-with-russian-ties-pop-up-in-us

    It’s going to make sorting out the real news from the fake news much harder as the election draws nearer.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    Or get a machine that does bean to cup. Its more expensive than a pod machine up-front, but over time it costs much, much less to operate as you can get great quality coffee straight from the beans without being tied into any pod company for ongoing costs.

    Bit like Vimes and his shoes.
    When Mrs S and I got married, nearly a decade ago now, we pooled all of the cash we we given as gifts and bought a fancy DeLonghi coffee machine - beans go in the top, and coffee comes out of the bottom! It’s still going strong, and by some distance the most often used appliance in the kitchen.

    The pod machines are like razor blades, way more expensive over time and tied to one manufacturer. In their favour they’re slightly less messy.
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Conversely, I can never understand why folks subject themselves to instant, when fresh coffee is so readily accessible with a dripper and filters, which can be bought for less than £10.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    A good article, thanks, Ms Free.

    I'd quibble on something though: families have always been founded on more than 'marriage'. That may be the norm; it *may* even be the ideal; but marriage should probably not be seen as a 'foundation'.

    There have always been single mothers; less commonly, there have always been single dads. There have been cohabiting couples who do not want to go through the rules forced on them by a religion that has caused so much harm. They can still be 'families', and should be seen as such by society and the law.

    To see this, just ask a simple question: can you have a family without marriage? If the answer is yes, then removal of the clause is fine. If no, then you are telling many people they are not a 'family'.

    As for the word 'women' being removed: if the clause gave women more power, it should be kept. If the clause gave them less power, or was restrictive, then it shouldn't really be in, should it?

    In the case of Article 41.2.2°, this seems utterly restrictive towards women. It is a very unequal clause.

    All of these clauses seem somewhat archaic and based in a historic view of the world that was incompatible with reality even when they were written.

    The points made by opponents are these:

    1. Women were very suspicious of the removal of any reference to them at all, whether married or not, whether carers or not because they felt that this would result in their interests being overlooked. The proponents had no answer to this. Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all, especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want. There was a concern that this was part of a wider movement to remove references to women in public documents.

    2. Conversely the care amendment was seen as reducing the state's obligations and dumping these on - mostly - women.

    So women would end up with more responsibilities, less support and no mention of them at all. The proponents were arguing about some archaic language while the opponents were talking about real world realities. It's worth reading what families with disabled children were saying - they were furious.

    The surprise is not the size of the No vote. It's that the political class ever thought it would get through. They were hugely out of touch.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    Crisis averted! Coffee has been purchased, made and drunk.

    Normality can be resumed. Sadly for you.... ;)
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    Gadfly said:

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Conversely, I can never understand why folks subject themselves to instant, when fresh coffee is so readily accessible with a dripper and filters, which can be bought for less than £10.
    The thing is, I generally awake early in the morning - often four or earlier. All I want is a caffeine hit, and instant does that for me. Boil the kettle, dollop in a teaspoon of coffee, add sweetener and milk, and the job's jobbed.

    Nothing wrong with people preferring other coffee, but if it works for me, so I'll stick with it.

    (In addition, as a vague generalisations, I'd argue the more expensive the coffee, the more hideous the taste. Some of the 'rocket fuel' people used to brew as their 'favourite' at various workplaces were invariably horrible.)
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Nigelb said:

    CPS lawyers in England and Wales trivialise teen sexual abuse, report says
    Exclusive: Independent examination of rape prosecutions hears lawyers are ‘obsessed’ with credibility of victims and use victim-blaming language
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/11/cps-lawyers-in-england-and-wales-trivialise-teen-sexual-abuse-report-says

    Much like the Met, as set out in a recent HMIC report.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,095

    Gadfly said:

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Conversely, I can never understand why folks subject themselves to instant, when fresh coffee is so readily accessible with a dripper and filters, which can be bought for less than £10.
    The thing is, I generally awake early in the morning - often four or earlier. All I want is a caffeine hit, and instant does that for me. Boil the kettle, dollop in a teaspoon of coffee, add sweetener and milk, and the job's jobbed.

    Nothing wrong with people preferring other coffee, but if it works for me, so I'll stick with it.

    (In addition, as a vague generalisations, I'd argue the more expensive the coffee, the more hideous the taste. Some of the 'rocket fuel' people used to brew as their 'favourite' at various workplaces were invariably horrible.)
    My drip machine has a timer, I get up to fresh coffee
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Smoke 'em IF ya got 'em.
    Try tea
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    CPS lawyers in England and Wales trivialise teen sexual abuse, report says
    Exclusive: Independent examination of rape prosecutions hears lawyers are ‘obsessed’ with credibility of victims and use victim-blaming language
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/11/cps-lawyers-in-england-and-wales-trivialise-teen-sexual-abuse-report-says

    Much like the Met, as set out in a recent HMIC report.
    Or OFSTED.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,326
    Gadfly said:

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Conversely, I can never understand why folks subject themselves to instant, when fresh coffee is so readily accessible with a dripper and filters, which can be bought for less than £10.
    1. Buy instant coffee
    2. Buy kettle
    3. Boil kettle
    4. Put instant coffee in cup
    5. Pour boiling water in cup
    6. Add milk and sugar to taste
    7. Stir
    8. Drink

    Maintenance costs: wash spoon and mug
    Number of moving parts: tap valve (1)
    Cost: negligible

    :):):)
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Likewise, an old boss of mine had a really expensive coffee machine, and treated coffee-making as almost a religious experience. He would also get into heated discussions (non-seriously) with another caffeine addict who used a rival machine.

    Being serious, decent coffee can be made from almost any machine other than a kettle.

    Good quality coffee requires pressure to make, pressure you can't get from a kettle and can get from almost any other machine. That's [part of the] reason why instant is ****.
    There are many systems to make coffee without pressure, using only gravity, such as filter coffee. I also quite like Egyptian coffee where the grounds are boiled up with the water and left in the cup.

    I am a fan of my Nespresso machine though, great crema and aroma, very convenient and about 40p a cup, so fine for anyone apart from 30p Lee.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    edited March 11
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    CPS lawyers in England and Wales trivialise teen sexual abuse, report says
    Exclusive: Independent examination of rape prosecutions hears lawyers are ‘obsessed’ with credibility of victims and use victim-blaming language
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/11/cps-lawyers-in-england-and-wales-trivialise-teen-sexual-abuse-report-says

    Much like the Met, as set out in a recent HMIC report.
    The difference is perhaps that the CPS doesn't appear to be in denial about the problem to the same extent.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    Cyclefree said:

    A good article, thanks, Ms Free.

    I'd quibble on something though: families have always been founded on more than 'marriage'. That may be the norm; it *may* even be the ideal; but marriage should probably not be seen as a 'foundation'.

    There have always been single mothers; less commonly, there have always been single dads. There have been cohabiting couples who do not want to go through the rules forced on them by a religion that has caused so much harm. They can still be 'families', and should be seen as such by society and the law.

    To see this, just ask a simple question: can you have a family without marriage? If the answer is yes, then removal of the clause is fine. If no, then you are telling many people they are not a 'family'.

    As for the word 'women' being removed: if the clause gave women more power, it should be kept. If the clause gave them less power, or was restrictive, then it shouldn't really be in, should it?

    In the case of Article 41.2.2°, this seems utterly restrictive towards women. It is a very unequal clause.

    All of these clauses seem somewhat archaic and based in a historic view of the world that was incompatible with reality even when they were written.

    The points made by opponents are these:

    1. Women were very suspicious of the removal of any reference to them at all, whether married or not, whether carers or not because they felt that this would result in their interests being overlooked. The proponents had no answer to this. Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all, especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want. There was a concern that this was part of a wider movement to remove references to women in public documents.

    2. Conversely the care amendment was seen as reducing the state's obligations and dumping these on - mostly - women.

    So women would end up with more responsibilities, less support and no mention of them at all. The proponents were arguing about some archaic language while the opponents were talking about real world realities. It's worth reading what families with disabled children were saying - they were furious.

    The surprise is not the size of the No vote. It's that the political class ever thought it would get through. They were hugely out of touch.
    1. insert *Some* before 'women'.

    "Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all"

    I thoroughly disagree with this. Clauses can be restrictive or free; granting freedoms or restricting them. That is very much a restrictive clause, and IMO has no place in a constitution. It makes vast assumptions about the way families live their lives.

    I don't see how the care amendment dumps more responsibilities onto women. Take my family situation: Mrs J works, whilst I'm a house-husband. we freely chose this, and it works well for us (and other people we know). Clause 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 utterly ignore the role I play in the home, which is traditionally the 'female' one. Imagine if Mrs J was to be made redundant: that clause may put us under a worse situation than if I worked and Mrs J was at home.

    " especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want."

    That can change. The US shows how constitutions can become akin to a religion, with every word providing a powerful meaning to adherents. How might government and society view 41.2.2 in fifty years' time? Might it be seen as a requirement for women to stay at home?

    These clauses are anti-equality. More importantly to me, if I was Irish, they're against the situation our family is in.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    viewcode said:

    Gadfly said:

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Conversely, I can never understand why folks subject themselves to instant, when fresh coffee is so readily accessible with a dripper and filters, which can be bought for less than £10.
    1. Buy instant coffee
    2. Buy kettle
    3. Boil kettle
    4. Put instant coffee in cup
    5. Pour boiling water in cup
    6. Add milk and sugar to taste
    7. Stir
    8. Drink

    Maintenance costs: wash spoon and mug
    Number of moving parts: tap valve (1)
    Cost: negligible

    :):):)
    PB pedantry forces me to point out that you forgot the moving parts in the switch on the kettle and at the mains, or on the cooker, depending on the precise situation.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    This is a bigger lie than the dodgy dossier.

    Heads need to roll at the palace.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    Exhaustively, to judge by previous threads.

    FWIW, I think their real motivation is to try and drum up a story so they can have more pictures released. There's nothing especially odd about the photo that can't be explained by a not very good amateur photographer using a Google Pixar, and while you would expect the RF to have a decent camera and photographer for some reason they think it's cool and clever not to.

    But - now they've sold that one, they want more, and circumstances give them the opportunity to whip up a storm.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    A warning for the NHS.

    Hackers Behind the Change Healthcare Ransomware Attack Just Received a $22 Million Payment
    The transaction, visible on Bitcoin's blockchain, suggests the victim of one of the worst ransomware attacks in years may have paid a very large ransom.
    https://www.wired.com/story/alphv-change-healthcare-ransomware-payment/

    The damage is perhaps worse there because the insurance system depends entirely on regular cash transfers.
    It has bankrupted quite a few providers ... some of whom Change Healthcare has subsequently acquired.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    My (probably wrong) working assumption is that she's quite ill (see car photo), and she/they didn't want a family photo (hopefully not a last one) of her looking ill. A bad mis-step if true.

    It seems to be one of the rare cases where conspiracy theories (albeit a short-lived one) turn out to be true: the photos probably were doctored.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    Cyclefree said:

    A good article, thanks, Ms Free.

    I'd quibble on something though: families have always been founded on more than 'marriage'. That may be the norm; it *may* even be the ideal; but marriage should probably not be seen as a 'foundation'.

    There have always been single mothers; less commonly, there have always been single dads. There have been cohabiting couples who do not want to go through the rules forced on them by a religion that has caused so much harm. They can still be 'families', and should be seen as such by society and the law.

    To see this, just ask a simple question: can you have a family without marriage? If the answer is yes, then removal of the clause is fine. If no, then you are telling many people they are not a 'family'.

    As for the word 'women' being removed: if the clause gave women more power, it should be kept. If the clause gave them less power, or was restrictive, then it shouldn't really be in, should it?

    In the case of Article 41.2.2°, this seems utterly restrictive towards women. It is a very unequal clause.

    All of these clauses seem somewhat archaic and based in a historic view of the world that was incompatible with reality even when they were written.

    The points made by opponents are these:

    1. Women were very suspicious of the removal of any reference to them at all, whether married or not, whether carers or not because they felt that this would result in their interests being overlooked. The proponents had no answer to this. Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all, especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want. There was a concern that this was part of a wider movement to remove references to women in public documents.

    2. Conversely the care amendment was seen as reducing the state's obligations and dumping these on - mostly - women.

    So women would end up with more responsibilities, less support and no mention of them at all. The proponents were arguing about some archaic language while the opponents were talking about real world realities. It's worth reading what families with disabled children were saying - they were furious.

    The surprise is not the size of the No vote. It's that the political class ever thought it would get through. They were hugely out of touch.
    Though the polling on both questions showed consistent leads for Yes;

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2024_Irish_constitutional_referendums

    Moral: turnout matters, and so intensity of belief matters. A determined minority can outvote a less determined majority if that majority can't be bothered to turn up.

    Something similar here in 2016.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    At least I know what the afternoon thread is going to be about.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    David Cameron is facing criticism from his own side for his competent handling of the Gaza crisis.

    He should, of course, ignore the backbenchers

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/lord-cameron-urged-to-stop-sniping-at-israel/ar-BB1jCdWR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=e2884df50d05425285e6ae82f247a0d8&ei=28
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    edited March 11

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Some people have quasi-religious rites when it comes to tea and coffee. A friend washes a tea cup out three or five times with hot water, before leaving boiling water in the cups 'to allow the cups to warm'. She then empties the water and pours the tea.

    Likewise, an old boss of mine had a really expensive coffee machine, and treated coffee-making as almost a religious experience. He would also get into heated discussions (non-seriously) with another caffeine addict who used a rival machine.

    I just don't get it. The expensive coffee often tastes like sh*t anyway.
    Do keep up. Some of it being shite is a feature not a bug.

    https://coffeebeanshop.co.uk/products/kopi-luwak

    This marketing-speak BTW reminds me of the old 1980s student rag mag joke about 'Eat squirrel shite - a hazelnut in every bite'*

    * an ad slogan for a particular choc bar which had lots of nuts in it, for those who are too young to recall it

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    I blame the Aussies.

    Americans fear drunk fans as cricket fever sweeps country

    The sport is becoming increasingly popular in the US, with plans for new stadiums in several areas — triggering concerns of increased hooliganism


    A recent village hall meeting in Oswego in Illinois began in the usual fashion, with trustees and members of the public rising to their feet to place their hands on their hearts as a military veteran recited the pledge of allegiance.

    But most of the meeting was taken up with talk of a game known to be played in far-flung parts of the world and now said to be so popular in the United States that it required a stadium in the village.

    “I would like to start by saying I’m not opposed to cricket,” said Dawn DeRosa, who lives near the site of the proposed cricket stadium. “I work from home,” she said. “Can you imagine having professional meetings with CEOs of Fortune 500 companies with construction sounds, cheering, announcements going on in the background?”

    And what would it be like, she asked, if the village was overrun with cricket fans? “We would have strangers walking through our yards, urinating in our pond and throwing up in our flowerbeds.”

    Oswego, about 40 miles southwest of Chicago, is by no means the only American community grappling with the prospect of a cricket stadium. In Fairfax, northern Virginia, a resident’s group has sprung up to protest against a planned cricket stadium on the grounds of George Mason University. It would serve as the home ground for Washington Freedom, a new professional T20 cricket team that recently hired the Australian cricket great Ricky Ponting as its head coach.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/americans-fear-drunk-fans-as-cricket-fever-sweeps-country-fl7p6wqf8
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    Cyclefree said:

    A good article, thanks, Ms Free.

    I'd quibble on something though: families have always been founded on more than 'marriage'. That may be the norm; it *may* even be the ideal; but marriage should probably not be seen as a 'foundation'.

    There have always been single mothers; less commonly, there have always been single dads. There have been cohabiting couples who do not want to go through the rules forced on them by a religion that has caused so much harm. They can still be 'families', and should be seen as such by society and the law.

    To see this, just ask a simple question: can you have a family without marriage? If the answer is yes, then removal of the clause is fine. If no, then you are telling many people they are not a 'family'.

    As for the word 'women' being removed: if the clause gave women more power, it should be kept. If the clause gave them less power, or was restrictive, then it shouldn't really be in, should it?

    In the case of Article 41.2.2°, this seems utterly restrictive towards women. It is a very unequal clause.

    All of these clauses seem somewhat archaic and based in a historic view of the world that was incompatible with reality even when they were written.

    The points made by opponents are these:

    1. Women were very suspicious of the removal of any reference to them at all, whether married or not, whether carers or not because they felt that this would result in their interests being overlooked. The proponents had no answer to this. Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all, especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want. There was a concern that this was part of a wider movement to remove references to women in public documents.

    2. Conversely the care amendment was seen as reducing the state's obligations and dumping these on - mostly - women.

    So women would end up with more responsibilities, less support and no mention of them at all. The proponents were arguing about some archaic language while the opponents were talking about real world realities. It's worth reading what families with disabled children were saying - they were furious.

    The surprise is not the size of the No vote. It's that the political class ever thought it would get through. They were hugely out of touch.
    Where would you go from here - and what do you think of the US Equal Rights Amendment as a model ?
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    This is a bigger lie than the dodgy dossier.

    Heads need to roll at the palace.
    The photographer's?

    [Goes into hiding.]
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085
    WTAF

    Coffee should be made in a cafetiere first pouring a small amount of not boiled water over the ground beans and then just off boiling water added later. Stirred with a wooden spoon.

    As followers of my coffee adventures will be only too well aware, I would out of choice use Swiss Water Processed Decaffeinated Colombian from the Algerian Coffee Store, obvs.

    All the fancy gizmos on the planet, and for sure not those gopping "pods" can't compare with that.

    In fact, it was put to me some time ago that "proper" coffee should be made by putting the ground beans in a jug and filling with off-boiling water, and then one small cup of cold water should be poured over it once settled, which would take all the grounds to the bottom of the jug. No plunger required.

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085
    Meanwhile, on topic thanks for bringing that to our attention. It does seem strange that the intention appears to be equalising the status of women in Ireland and you know what they say about the road to hell. From what has been described it seemed a sensible enough set of proposals.

    Plus there is a slight illogicality whereby on the one hand the patriarchy is condemned for being the patriarchy, while on the other, efforts to change things are criticised because there is no public will to do so. A public, presumably, consisting of, not to say dominated by that very same patriarchy.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    A former pupil of mine - I won't say whom, or in what role - is a senior figure at Kensington Palace.

    If that person is typical of their workforce, I'm not surprised things are chaotic. Not stupid, by any means, and a nice person as well as determined and resilient, but with the attention span of a concussed goldfish and the organisational abilities of Cummings after the third works meeting. Not even made captain of a sports team because of a remarkable ability to muddle up the positions everyone else should be in.

    So I would not be looking for conspiracy here. I could be completely wrong, of course, and Leon right. But the odds are against it.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    Fake-looking proof of life photo was fake shock.

    As the piece asks, how bad must things be if (a) they have to use an old image and (b) are is such a rush that they bollox it up.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    edited March 11
    The two proposed changes were also very warmly embraced by the same citizens assemblies that Sue Gray wanted to impose on the UK when labour comes to power

    In both cases the proposed changes received over 90% support from these assemblies.

    Alot of politics now is sock puppet, govt funded, pressure groups lobbying the govt for policies it wants. This comment from Cyclefree is certainly the case. I cannot see it changing either, if anything I expect it to accelerate in the next few years.

    "The system of patronage which has developed whereby the political class maintain and fund unaccountable client NGO’s, rewarding their messaging with behind the scenes influence is both fundamentally undemocratic, risks creating a false narrative disconnecting politicians from voters and creates conflicts of interest."
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    This is why suborbital cargo delivery is a vital development. The ability to get fresh ground coffee anywhere on the planet in 25 min is well worth the small number of nuclear wars that will be started by no notice launches.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    TOPPING said:

    Meanwhile, on topic thanks for bringing that to our attention. It does seem strange that the intention appears to be equalising the status of women in Ireland and you know what they say about the road to hell. From what has been described it seemed a sensible enough set of proposals.

    Plus there is a slight illogicality whereby on the one hand the patriarchy is condemned for being the patriarchy, while on the other, efforts to change things are criticised because there is no public will to do so. A public, presumably, consisting of, not to say dominated by that very same patriarchy.

    we still keep comely maidens dancing at the crossroads.

  • Options

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    This is a bigger lie than the dodgy dossier.

    Heads need to roll at the palace.
    Fair point. Say what you like about the first King Charles, but at least he walked the walk, head-rolling-wise. Time for this Charles to step up.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    At least I know what the afternoon thread is going to be about.

    What happened to @rcs1000 's promised Part Two of Trump's Chances?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,169
    Cyclefree said:

    A good article, thanks, Ms Free.

    I'd quibble on something though: families have always been founded on more than 'marriage'. That may be the norm; it *may* even be the ideal; but marriage should probably not be seen as a 'foundation'.

    There have always been single mothers; less commonly, there have always been single dads. There have been cohabiting couples who do not want to go through the rules forced on them by a religion that has caused so much harm. They can still be 'families', and should be seen as such by society and the law.

    To see this, just ask a simple question: can you have a family without marriage? If the answer is yes, then removal of the clause is fine. If no, then you are telling many people they are not a 'family'.

    As for the word 'women' being removed: if the clause gave women more power, it should be kept. If the clause gave them less power, or was restrictive, then it shouldn't really be in, should it?

    In the case of Article 41.2.2°, this seems utterly restrictive towards women. It is a very unequal clause.

    All of these clauses seem somewhat archaic and based in a historic view of the world that was incompatible with reality even when they were written.

    The points made by opponents are these:

    1. Women were very suspicious of the removal of any reference to them at all, whether married or not, whether carers or not because they felt that this would result in their interests being overlooked. The proponents had no answer to this. Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all, especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want. There was a concern that this was part of a wider movement to remove references to women in public documents.

    2. Conversely the care amendment was seen as reducing the state's obligations and dumping these on - mostly - women.

    So women would end up with more responsibilities, less support and no mention of them at all. The proponents were arguing about some archaic language while the opponents were talking about real world realities. It's worth reading what families with disabled children were saying - they were furious.

    The surprise is not the size of the No vote. It's that the political class ever thought it would get through. They were hugely out of touch.
    Why do you say it’s surprising the political class ever thought it would get through? The polling, even up to early March, had Yes votes massively ahead.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    My (probably wrong) working assumption is that she's quite ill (see car photo), and she/they didn't want a family photo (hopefully not a last one) of her looking ill. A bad mis-step if true.

    It seems to be one of the rare cases where conspiracy theories (albeit a short-lived one) turn out to be true: the photos probably were doctored.
    The photos were doctorted - it's impossible to not look at the close up of the pattern on Louis's cardigan and not notice the join in the photos.

    Now that's probably something no-one would care about in a family photo but in a photo sent around the world and one intended to dismiss rumours something so obviously fake is going to be obvious..
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    edited March 11
    ydoethur said:

    At least I know what the afternoon thread is going to be about.

    What happened to @rcs1000 's promised Part Two of Trump's Chances?
    Robert wasn't modest or self effacing in his thread header, so I nixed it.

    (The reality is he hasn't uploaded it yet.)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423
    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    Gadfly said:

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    And they cost an effing fortune. And require cleaning, maintenance and fiddling. And then you just forget to buy the pods, and the local shop doesn't stock them...

    Conversely, I can never understand why folks subject themselves to instant, when fresh coffee is so readily accessible with a dripper and filters, which can be bought for less than £10.
    1. Buy instant coffee
    2. Buy kettle
    3. Boil kettle
    4. Put instant coffee in cup
    5. Pour boiling water in cup
    6. Add milk and sugar to taste
    7. Stir
    8. Drink

    Maintenance costs: wash spoon and mug
    Number of moving parts: tap valve (1)
    Cost: negligible

    :):):)
    PB pedantry forces me to point out that you forgot the moving parts in the switch on the kettle and at the mains, or on the cooker, depending on the precise situation.
    A stove top mocha pot makes coffee about as fast as boiling a kettle.

    Less moving parts.

    Buy it in stainless steel and it will live for decades - I’ve had one (got a range of sizes) that is 30 years old and still good.

    There’s a rubber o ring you change every so often. And a metal filter disc that needs changing every couple of years.

    Cleaning is simple with stainless - puts it in the dishwasher.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    My biggest concern was the idea that the photo was automatically created by the phone being asked to ensure the photo was the best combination of a series of photos taken by the camera.

    Which meant that the Royal Family uses Android rather than Apple. Firstly I never knew such poverty existed and secondly I didn't realise the Royal Family were so hard up that they couldn't afford iPhones...
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,372

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    This is a bigger lie than the dodgy dossier.

    Heads need to roll at the palace.
    Heads need to be cropped, surely?
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,321
    I like classicfm in the mornings because there’s almost no news or scurrilous gossip. But even they just managed to talk about the fake proof of life photo. I’m all in on this now!
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    My (probably wrong) working assumption is that she's quite ill (see car photo), and she/they didn't want a family photo (hopefully not a last one) of her looking ill. A bad mis-step if true.

    It seems to be one of the rare cases where conspiracy theories (albeit a short-lived one) turn out to be true: the photos probably were doctored.
    Everyone fiddles with their photos now. The only question is how much.

    Watching my daughters use various apps on their phones to rework photos - point and click effects like masking, partial focus etc - the idea of a photo as anything like a raw* image is long gone.

    *boom boom
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    Labour's found a new policy angle: The Oscars!

    Nearly half of UK award nominees in last decade were privately educated
    Labour analysis finds 40% of Britons nominated for main prizes at major cultural awards went to private school

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/10/uk-award-nominees-privately-educated-labour-analysis

    So they recognise the benefits and opportunities that a private education can give and have dropped their ridiculous VAT on fees policy? Thank goodness for that.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    ydoethur said:

    At least I know what the afternoon thread is going to be about.

    What happened to @rcs1000 's promised Part Two of Trump's Chances?
    He's recalculating ?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    Yes. Leon says the photo was done by AI and that she's probably dead. Case closed.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735

    Labour's found a new policy angle: The Oscars!

    Nearly half of UK award nominees in last decade were privately educated
    Labour analysis finds 40% of Britons nominated for main prizes at major cultural awards went to private school

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/10/uk-award-nominees-privately-educated-labour-analysis

    Looking forward to Labour’s proposals for world-class drama departments, threatres, and production studios in all state schools then.

    Or do they prefer levelling down to leveling up?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    edited March 11
    The Irish Roman Catholic church opposed both proposed changes in the referendums to the definition of the traditional family and the role of women.

    After defeats in Irish referendums on divorce, abortion and same sex marriage it was therefore the first victories for the Vatican in an Irish referendum ironically. There were massive No votes in rural socially conservative Donegal for instance with only one part of socially liberal Dublin voting Yes.

    The role of the Irish Catholic church in Irish society is not yet dead therefore despite the
    efforts of Varadkar and SF to
    have a fully secular and socially liberal Ireland
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,309
    Good morning, everyone.

    Not paying much attention to it but it seems the media's decided to manufacture a story. Photograph possibly over-edited. That's it. Yet apparently the most important story in the world.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    This is a bigger lie than the dodgy dossier.

    Heads need to roll at the palace.
    Heads need to be cropped, surely?
    There may well be some red eye at Kensington Palace this morning.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    I think it's worth adding to Cyclefree's article that these changes to the constitution followed a Citizens Assembly that reported in 2021. So, in some respects, there was a great deal of pressure on the government to act, even if it didn't really want to hold the referendums.

    The Citizen Assembly prices had been used very successfully to create a nuanced position that could win wife public support, but in this case the government disregarded the recommendations of the citizens assembly.

    The recommendation from the citizens assembly had been to extend constitutional protection to families other than married families, but the government's position was that the change they proposed to the constitution would not make any legal change to family rights. The assembly had also voted in favour of placing a duty on the state to provide care, while the amendment offered by the government avoided doing so.

    In both cases the recommendation of the citizens assembly was more "progressive" than the government text, and would have given the public something positive to vote for.

    It looks too me like an example where taking what looks like a more moderate position actually loses support, rather than gains it. Perhaps a warning for others?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Smoke 'em IF ya got 'em.
    Try tea
    real men have tea in the morning
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Get one of those machines with the pods. It really is better coffee and even easier than instant. We used to have one at work.
    Or get a machine that does bean to cup. Its more expensive than a pod machine up-front, but over time it costs much, much less to operate as you can get great quality coffee straight from the beans without being tied into any pod company for ongoing costs.

    Bit like Vimes and his shoes.
    I'm talking about convenience, not cost. Some friends have got one of those £1000+ "authentic" Italian brass and chrome jobs that would suit a 1950s coffee bar and although they swear by it, it's just a complete faff. With the pods, it is basically a case of pressing a button, which is easier than instant. And, whisper it, the coffee is better.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    IanB2 said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    Yes. Leon says the photo was done by AI and that she's probably dead. Case closed.
    Hardly, foreign press had photos of her with her mother in a car last week.

    She is recovering from surgery and won't be seen in public again until Easter, as we have known for weeks. She deserves privacy
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    ydoethur said:

    A former pupil of mine - I won't say whom, or in what role - is a senior figure at Kensington Palace.

    If that person is typical of their workforce, I'm not surprised things are chaotic. Not stupid, by any means, and a nice person as well as determined and resilient, but with the attention span of a concussed goldfish and the organisational abilities of Cummings after the third works meeting. Not even made captain of a sports team because of a remarkable ability to muddle up the positions everyone else should be in.

    So I would not be looking for conspiracy here. I could be completely wrong, of course, and Leon right. But the odds are against it.

    Tweet of the night:

    "Having a great first day as Kensington Palace press officer. Slightly regretting lying on my CV and listing “Photoshop proficiency” as one of my skills, but I think I got away with it.

    Anyway, now to take a big gulp of water and log on to Twitter to see the latest news."

    https://twitter.com/Psythor/status/1766954953153675439?t=IBF9lNRXaHDSTYdChKcEQA&s=19
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681

    I've got some sad news to share.

    I've been up a couple of hours, we're out of coffee, and the shop does not open for another hour.

    I'm afraid that, for the next hour and fifteen minutes, I may appear unusually human.

    Apologies in advance. ;)

    Smoke 'em IF ya got 'em.
    Try tea
    real men have tea in the morning
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    HYUFD said:

    The Irish Roman Catholic church opposed both proposed changes in the referendums to the definition of the traditional family and the role of women.

    After defeats in Irish referendums on divorce, abortion and same sex marriage it was therefore the first victories for the Vatican in an Irish referendum ironically. There were massive No votes in rural socially conservative Donegal for instance with only one part of socially liberal Dublin voting Yes.

    The role of the Irish Catholic church in Irish society is not yet dead therefore despite the
    efforts of Varadkar and SF to
    have a fully secular and socially liberal Ireland

    Their vision is a shit version of the US but with more rain.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    edited March 11
    DavidL said:

    Labour's found a new policy angle: The Oscars!

    Nearly half of UK award nominees in last decade were privately educated
    Labour analysis finds 40% of Britons nominated for main prizes at major cultural awards went to private school

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/10/uk-award-nominees-privately-educated-labour-analysis

    So they recognise the benefits and opportunities that a private education can give and have dropped their ridiculous VAT on fees policy? Thank goodness for that.
    Not only Oscar nominees but Labour leaders from Attlee to Gaitskell to Foot and Blair and even Sir Keir himself also benefited from a private education at secondary level and even Corbyn went to prep school
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    My (probably wrong) working assumption is that she's quite ill (see car photo), and she/they didn't want a family photo (hopefully not a last one) of her looking ill. A bad mis-step if true.

    It seems to be one of the rare cases where conspiracy theories (albeit a short-lived one) turn out to be true: the photos probably were doctored.
    Everyone fiddles with their photos now. The only question is how much.

    Watching my daughters use various apps on their phones to rework photos - point and click effects like masking, partial focus etc - the idea of a photo as anything like a raw* image is long gone.

    *boom boom
    This is an area where Leon's AI concerns are entirely justified in the near term.
    Most photography is on phones now, and is already highly computational. You can get RAW images from iPhones, but very few people do.
    What happens when phones have the processing capacity to analyse and manipulate images in real time (as in alter completely, rather than adjust contrast, white balance etc) ?
    You could, for example, program them simply not to 'see' certain things or people at all. That's not very far off.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423
    OT - excellent as ever.

    One thing that comes to mind is that the Government-NGO loop can, indeed, very easily become a closed circle. With both the NGO and the Government losing touching with the reality of the voters.

    From there you have a variant of the self radicalisation spiral, complete with a growing contempt for “the stupid voters”. Which is a standard feature of such spirals.

    The voters sense being talked down to, quite rapidly, and reject it. The politicians/NGOs see this as evidence that the voters are the problem…

    When you add in the modern style of politics - “I am right, and even asking me to explain why is evidence that you are repulsive scum” - and you have an explanation for the disconnect with the political classes.

    The missing piece is the old idea of trying to persuade the voters. When was the last time you saw a politician come up with a plan, then make a series of speeches, interviews etc arguing for it. Beyond a few ya boo sound bites, that is?
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Taz said:

    The two proposed changes were also very warmly embraced by the same citizens assemblies that Sue Gray wanted to impose on the UK when labour comes to power

    In both cases the proposed changes received over 90% support from these assemblies.

    Alot of politics now is sock puppet, govt funded, pressure groups lobbying the govt for policies it wants. This comment from Cyclefree is certainly the case. I cannot see it changing either, if anything I expect it to accelerate in the next few years.

    "The system of patronage which has developed whereby the political class maintain and fund unaccountable client NGO’s, rewarding their messaging with behind the scenes influence is both fundamentally undemocratic, risks creating a false narrative disconnecting politicians from voters and creates conflicts of interest."

    The Irish government essentially ignored the citizen assemblies and instead produced their own much weaker wording.

    This shows two things. Firstly, that citizen assemblies are not a threat to governments or Parliament. They're an advisory body only. Secondly, that they actually provide really good advice and when a government follows that advice (as on abortion) they are successful, but when they ignore that advice (as in these latest referendums) the government makes a hames of it and fails.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    Cyclefree said:

    A good article, thanks, Ms Free.

    I'd quibble on something though: families have always been founded on more than 'marriage'. That may be the norm; it *may* even be the ideal; but marriage should probably not be seen as a 'foundation'.

    There have always been single mothers; less commonly, there have always been single dads. There have been cohabiting couples who do not want to go through the rules forced on them by a religion that has caused so much harm. They can still be 'families', and should be seen as such by society and the law.

    To see this, just ask a simple question: can you have a family without marriage? If the answer is yes, then removal of the clause is fine. If no, then you are telling many people they are not a 'family'.

    As for the word 'women' being removed: if the clause gave women more power, it should be kept. If the clause gave them less power, or was restrictive, then it shouldn't really be in, should it?

    In the case of Article 41.2.2°, this seems utterly restrictive towards women. It is a very unequal clause.

    All of these clauses seem somewhat archaic and based in a historic view of the world that was incompatible with reality even when they were written.

    The points made by opponents are these:

    1. Women were very suspicious of the removal of any reference to them at all, whether married or not, whether carers or not because they felt that this would result in their interests being overlooked. The proponents had no answer to this. Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all, especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want. There was a concern that this was part of a wider movement to remove references to women in public documents.

    2. Conversely the care amendment was seen as reducing the state's obligations and dumping these on - mostly - women.

    So women would end up with more responsibilities, less support and no mention of them at all. The proponents were arguing about some archaic language while the opponents were talking about real world realities. It's worth reading what families with disabled children were saying - they were furious.

    The surprise is not the size of the No vote. It's that the political class ever thought it would get through. They were hugely out of touch.
    1. insert *Some* before 'women'.

    "Better to be mentioned in archaic language than not mentioned at all"

    I thoroughly disagree with this. Clauses can be restrictive or free; granting freedoms or restricting them. That is very much a restrictive clause, and IMO has no place in a constitution. It makes vast assumptions about the way families live their lives.

    I don't see how the care amendment dumps more responsibilities onto women. Take my family situation: Mrs J works, whilst I'm a house-husband. we freely chose this, and it works well for us (and other people we know). Clause 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 utterly ignore the role I play in the home, which is traditionally the 'female' one. Imagine if Mrs J was to be made redundant: that clause may put us under a worse situation than if I worked and Mrs J was at home.

    " especially as the archaic language has not really stopped women doing what they want."

    That can change. The US shows how constitutions can become akin to a religion, with every word providing a powerful meaning to adherents. How might government and society view 41.2.2 in fifty years' time? Might it be seen as a requirement for women to stay at home?

    These clauses are anti-equality. More importantly to me, if I was Irish, they're against the situation our family is in.
    I am describing the views of opponents - trying to summarise the views of lots of different groups all of whom had different reasons for opposing these 2 proposals.

    There is no good reason to remove references to women, especially since had this been done the Constitution would have had, according to reports, 117 references to men and only 1 to women. It would have made it even more archaic. I agree with you that families come in all shapes and sizes but removing references to women does not strike me as a female-friendly act. And in a patriarchal society such as Ireland a which has a long history of, frankly, treating women very shabbily indeed, such a move seems like a very easy way of not having to worry about their concerns at all. The proposal could very easily have included non-conventional families and strengthened women's rights without removing the references to women. But the proponents chose not to do that.

    The issue with the care amendment is that the proposed language is so watered down from what is there currently and so woolly that it gives no legal rights (indeed is probably not justiciable at all) and, in the view of opponents, makes it all but impossible to rely on it legally. It was seen as codifying discrimination against the disabled and those needing care into the Constitution by denying them legal rights or the ability to claim them.

    There is currently a case going through the Irish courts in which a single mother of a disabled child is seeking support by relying on the existing care article. There was concern that had the amendment been accepted people in her position would have lost even this route. The concerns cannot really be fully understood without understanding the background against which these proposals were being made. The position for the disabled in Ireland is particularly poor and the amendments were seen as entrenching this in the Constitution rather than making things better.

    I have necessarily tried to summarise a complex subject with a lot of moving parts. There is a lot of material in the Irish press if you want to take it further.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    ydoethur said:

    At least I know what the afternoon thread is going to be about.

    What happened to @rcs1000 's promised Part Two of Trump's Chances?
    Trump seems to be running out of cash. He was begging for small donations the other day on Twitter.

  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733

    TSE should steer clear of newsagents this morning, for the sake of his blood pressure.


    "it's a book written from a humorous perspective, it's deliberately in bad faith, arrogant, chauvinistic and so on," Cerquiglini told AFP.

    Beneath the provocative title and humour, the prominent academic hopes to convey the cross-Channel linguistic tangle since the Norman conquest of 1066 -- and how ridiculous French resistance to "anglicisms" can be.

    "You can also see my book as an homage to the English language, which has been able to adopt so many words... Viking, Danish, French, it's astonishing," Cerquiglini said.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/english-just-badly-pronounced-french-023325692.html

    English is mostly badly pronounced French. That gives us a head start in learning French and vice versa.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543
    On topic, thanks for a more informative piece on the Irish referendums than I have found elsewhere in the UK media. The BBC, for example, managed to report the result without either explaining what had been proposed and what was to be different. In fairness, @Cyclefree's explanation possibly explains why they dodged that.

    The first lesson to be learned is a particularly important one. Government funded NGOs have pushed the Trans agenda in Scotland harder than anyone else and actually caused the SG almost endless trouble as a result. It is, simply, corrupt for Politicians to channel public money to causes they support creating conflicts of interest, a lack of perspective and ultimately damaging the charities or NGOs themselves by making them beholden to power rather than holding it to account. We need to stop it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    Yes. Leon says the photo was done by AI and that she's probably dead. Case closed.
    Hardly, foreign press had photos of her with her mother in a car last week.

    She is recovering from surgery and won't be seen in public again until Easter, as we have known for weeks. She deserves privacy
    ..
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Have we discussed this?

    What are the Royals up to???

    Four international photo agencies have retracted a picture of the Princess of Wales and her children over concerns it has been "manipulated".

    The image, taken by Prince William for Mother's Day, was the first of Catherine to be released by Kensington Palace since her surgery in January.

    But, Getty Images, AFP, Reuters and Associated Press have pulled the photo - noting an "inconsistency in alignment of Princess Charlotte's left hand".

    Kensington Palace declined to comment.

    The photo shows the princess sitting down, surrounded by Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and Prince George, the latter wrapping his arms around her.

    It was the first official photo of the Princess of Wales since her abdominal surgery two months ago. Since then she has stayed out of the public eye.

    The image was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media accounts with a message from Catherine which said: "Thank you for your kind wishes and continued support over the last two months.

    "Wishing everyone a Happy Mother's Day."

    It has become a regular routine for the royal couple to release their own photos of special family occasions. More often than not, the photos are taken by Catherine and are issued to the media with instructions on how they can be used.

    But, before Prince William's image of his family was posted online, it would have gone through the social media team at Kensington Palace who manage the online accounts of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

    It may well have been that some editing was done on the original photo which has now resulted in the discrepancies in its appearance.

    The implication here is not that the entire photo is a fake or that the Princess of Wales is more unwell than she appears in the image. That seems unlikely and would be a very high-risk strategy from the Kensington Palace team.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68526972

    There was some discussion late last night. Far from quahing conspiracy theories Kensington Palace has put them on steroids!

    I don't think they can maintain the current silence. Our normally Royalty obsessed press has been strangely reticent about recent goings on in the Royal Family.
    My (probably wrong) working assumption is that she's quite ill (see car photo), and she/they didn't want a family photo (hopefully not a last one) of her looking ill. A bad mis-step if true.

    It seems to be one of the rare cases where conspiracy theories (albeit a short-lived one) turn out to be true: the photos probably were doctored.
    Everyone fiddles with their photos now. The only question is how much.

    Watching my daughters use various apps on their phones to rework photos - point and click effects like masking, partial focus etc - the idea of a photo as anything like a raw* image is long gone.

    *boom boom
    This is an area where Leon's AI concerns are entirely justified in the near term.
    Most photography is on phones now, and is already highly computational. You can get RAW images from iPhones, but very few people do.
    What happens when phones have the processing capacity to analyse and manipulate images in real time (as in alter completely, rather than adjust contrast, white balance etc) ?
    You could, for example, program them simply not to 'see' certain things or people at all. That's not very far off.
    The default settings on many phones performs image manipulation to start with. Given the tiny lenses and multiple lens systems, this is inevitable.

    Most people don’t realise that every photo they take is manipulated, automaticallly.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,423

    TSE should steer clear of newsagents this morning, for the sake of his blood pressure.


    "it's a book written from a humorous perspective, it's deliberately in bad faith, arrogant, chauvinistic and so on," Cerquiglini told AFP.

    Beneath the provocative title and humour, the prominent academic hopes to convey the cross-Channel linguistic tangle since the Norman conquest of 1066 -- and how ridiculous French resistance to "anglicisms" can be.

    "You can also see my book as an homage to the English language, which has been able to adopt so many words... Viking, Danish, French, it's astonishing," Cerquiglini said.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/english-just-badly-pronounced-french-023325692.html

    English is mostly badly pronounced French. That gives us a head start in learning French and vice versa.
    English is the result of Norman Men-At-Arms chatting up Anglo-Saxon barmaids.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    I think it's worth adding to Cyclefree's article that these changes to the constitution followed a Citizens Assembly that reported in 2021. So, in some respects, there was a great deal of pressure on the government to act, even if it didn't really want to hold the referendums.

    The Citizen Assembly prices had been used very successfully to create a nuanced position that could win wife public support, but in this case the government disregarded the recommendations of the citizens assembly.

    The recommendation from the citizens assembly had been to extend constitutional protection to families other than married families, but the government's position was that the change they proposed to the constitution would not make any legal change to family rights. The assembly had also voted in favour of placing a duty on the state to provide care, while the amendment offered by the government avoided doing so.

    In both cases the recommendation of the citizens assembly was more "progressive" than the government text, and would have given the public something positive to vote for.

    It looks too me like an example where taking what looks like a more moderate position actually loses support, rather than gains it. Perhaps a warning for others?

    My header would have been even longer if I'd included this. So thanks.

    There is nothing "moderate" in my view in the state choosing not to have a duty to provide care. It was unsurprising to see it being described by a pro-disabled rights campaigner as Thatcherite in its disregard for society's obligations.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    TSE should steer clear of newsagents this morning, for the sake of his blood pressure.


    "it's a book written from a humorous perspective, it's deliberately in bad faith, arrogant, chauvinistic and so on," Cerquiglini told AFP.

    Beneath the provocative title and humour, the prominent academic hopes to convey the cross-Channel linguistic tangle since the Norman conquest of 1066 -- and how ridiculous French resistance to "anglicisms" can be.

    "You can also see my book as an homage to the English language, which has been able to adopt so many words... Viking, Danish, French, it's astonishing," Cerquiglini said.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/english-just-badly-pronounced-french-023325692.html

    English is mostly badly pronounced French. That gives us a head start in learning French and vice versa.
    I thought we knew all of this from Officer Crabtree in the documentary series Allo Allo?
This discussion has been closed.