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.
I thank you for the article; I think it's a fair summation of your views.
However, the existing wording ignores the way my family live our lives, and (if we lived in Ireland) would not include us. That is why the current wording is wrong. It is, by its very nature, unequal.
"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."
And a father in the same situation cannot currently appeal to the existing care article, even if he is giving the same support as the woman. Because the clause says only a woman can give that support.
If there are 117 references to men, get rid of those where they're not needed as well.
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
There was only 1 constituency which voted in favour - Dun Laoghaire - and by only 50.3%.
I think though it would be foolish to assume this was because of priests' influence. A lot of feminist groups were against the proposals. The opposition came from all sorts of quarters and thinking this is a victory for those who want to return to the 1930's or 1950's is the wrong take. IMO anyway.
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.
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.
Of course. But I'm talking about purposive manipulations - erasing selected individuals, for example. If your phone could do that without your intervention, how could you trust even images you yourself had taken ?
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.
I thank you for the article; I think it's a fair summation of your views.
However, the existing wording ignores the way my family live our lives, and (if we lived in Ireland) would not include us. That is why the current wording is wrong. It is, by its very nature, unequal.
"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."
And a father in the same situation cannot currently appeal to the existing care article, even if he is giving the same support as the woman. Because the clause says only a woman can give that support.
If there are 117 references to men, get rid of those where they're not needed as well.
The short answer is that it's not enough for the existing wording to be wrong. The new wording needs to be right.
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
There was only 1 constituency which voted in favour - Dun Laoghaire - and by only 50.3%.
I think though it would be foolish to assume this was because of priests' influence. A lot of feminist groups were against the proposals. The opposition came from all sorts of quarters and thinking this is a victory for those who want to return to the 1930's or 1950's is the wrong take. IMO anyway.
Progressives may spin that but there is no doubt this was a big win for the Vatican and Irish Roman Catholics when the main Irish parties all pushed for Yes and they were pushing for a No with only Aontu and a few rural Independents.
After defeats in referendums on abortion and same sex marriage recently and decades before on divorce the Vatican will be delighted with the referendum results and see them as a win for their view of the traditional family and the place of mothers in the home
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.
I thank you for the article; I think it's a fair summation of your views.
However, the existing wording ignores the way my family live our lives, and (if we lived in Ireland) would not include us. That is why the current wording is wrong. It is, by its very nature, unequal.
"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."
And a father in the same situation cannot currently appeal to the existing care article, even if he is giving the same support as the woman. Because the clause says only a woman can give that support.
If there are 117 references to men, get rid of those where they're not needed as well.
The short answer is that it's not enough for the existing wording to be wrong. The new wording needs to be right.
What's wrong with "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex." ?
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
There was only 1 constituency which voted in favour - Dun Laoghaire - and by only 50.3%.
I think though it would be foolish to assume this was because of priests' influence. A lot of feminist groups were against the proposals. The opposition came from all sorts of quarters and thinking this is a victory for those who want to return to the 1930's or 1950's is the wrong take. IMO anyway.
Progressives may spin that but there is no doubt this was a big win for the Vatican and Irish Roman Catholics when the main Irish parties all pushed for Yes and they were pushing for a No with only Aotu and a few rural Independents.
After defeats in referendums on abortion and same sex marriage recently and decades before on divorce the Vatican will be delighted with the referendum results and see them as a win for their view of the traditional family and the place of mothers in the home
Is what it seems. I'm sure that it is not ideal and that perhaps the wording should have been changed but as the header describes it it seems to have been a genuine attempt at bringing the constitution into the 21st, and secular century.
A bit like the AV vote those years ago. It might have been imperfect and but a step on the road to PR but the categorical rejection of the idea meant all further progress was stopped in its tracks.
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
There was only 1 constituency which voted in favour - Dun Laoghaire - and by only 50.3%.
I think though it would be foolish to assume this was because of priests' influence. A lot of feminist groups were against the proposals. The opposition came from all sorts of quarters and thinking this is a victory for those who want to return to the 1930's or 1950's is the wrong take. IMO anyway.
Progressives may spin that but there is no doubt this was a big win for the Vatican and Irish Roman Catholics when the main Irish parties all pushed for Yes and they were pushing for a No with only Aotu and a few rural Independents.
After defeats in referendums on abortion and same sex marriage recently and decades before on divorce the Vatican will be delighted with the referendum results and see them as a win for their view of the traditional family and the place of mothers in the home
Echoes of the AV referendum here, squeezed between those who thought it didn't go far enough and those who thought it went too far.
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.
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.
I thank you for the article; I think it's a fair summation of your views.
However, the existing wording ignores the way my family live our lives, and (if we lived in Ireland) would not include us. That is why the current wording is wrong. It is, by its very nature, unequal.
"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."
And a father in the same situation cannot currently appeal to the existing care article, even if he is giving the same support as the woman. Because the clause says only a woman can give that support.
If there are 117 references to men, get rid of those where they're not needed as well.
The short answer is that it's not enough for the existing wording to be wrong. The new wording needs to be right.
What's wrong with "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex." ?
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
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.
I thank you for the article; I think it's a fair summation of your views.
However, the existing wording ignores the way my family live our lives, and (if we lived in Ireland) would not include us. That is why the current wording is wrong. It is, by its very nature, unequal.
"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."
And a father in the same situation cannot currently appeal to the existing care article, even if he is giving the same support as the woman. Because the clause says only a woman can give that support.
If there are 117 references to men, get rid of those where they're not needed as well.
It is I hope a fair summary of the opponents' views. Not mine.
One of the strongest opponents of the care amendment is a male member of the Irish Dail who is a single father of a disabled child. His views on why he was so opposed are worth reading. I was surprised by the vehemence. FWIW I think opposition to the care proposals may have bled into opposition to the family one.
Ultimately what was proposed was not seen as better than what currently exists. That's why the vote was No. No amount of criticism - however justified - of what you currently have will work if the changes are are not seen as better by enough people.
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
There was only 1 constituency which voted in favour - Dun Laoghaire - and by only 50.3%.
I think though it would be foolish to assume this was because of priests' influence. A lot of feminist groups were against the proposals. The opposition came from all sorts of quarters and thinking this is a victory for those who want to return to the 1930's or 1950's is the wrong take. IMO anyway.
Progressives may spin that but there is no doubt this was a big win for the Vatican and Irish Roman Catholics when the main Irish parties all pushed for Yes and they were pushing for a No with only Aontu and a few rural Independents.
After defeats in referendums on abortion and same sex marriage recently and decades before on divorce the Vatican will be delighted with the referendum results and see them as a win for their view of the traditional family and the place of mothers in the home
With respect, this is cobblers, because the Catholic church played very little role in the public debate.
The no vote is very much a victory for McDowell - he was a constant presence in the media arguing for no votes, and is now considering a run for President, or perhaps a new political party (again). There was also a lot of air time on the care referendum from advocates for a more radical change, that would give disabled people more rights and not place the burden of caregiving on women within the home.
People didn't vote no because the church told them 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.
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.
Of course. But I'm talking about purposive manipulations - erasing selected individuals, for example. If your phone could do that without your intervention, how could you trust even images you yourself had taken ?
Some phones are already doing quite drastic manipulation. Remember the controversy about photos of the Moon?
What you are talking about is difference in degree.
A smart lawyer might be able to get phone camera pictures thrown out as evidence - *now*
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"
It's still a live issue with the railways now, around which a lot of care is taken - and even so we still occasionally get incidents - e.g. this one in 2010 where a driver dozed off whilst coasting gently up to a signal going up Shap, and after coming to a stand the train rolled away backward for a couple of miles...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course. But I'm talking about purposive manipulations - erasing selected individuals, for example. If your phone could do that without your intervention, how could you trust even images you yourself had taken ?
Some phones are already doing quite drastic manipulation. Remember the controversy about photos of the Moon?
What you are talking about is difference in degree.
A smart lawyer might be able to get phone camera pictures thrown out as evidence - *now*
It's more than a difference of degree. Imagine all iPhones not recording Malmesbury in any photographs.
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
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.
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.
Of course. But I'm talking about purposive manipulations - erasing selected individuals, for example. If your phone could do that without your intervention, how could you trust even images you yourself had taken ?
Some phones are already doing quite drastic manipulation. Remember the controversy about photos of the Moon?
What you are talking about is difference in degree.
A smart lawyer might be able to get phone camera pictures thrown out as evidence - *now*
The moon photos were hillarious. If it looked like your photo was of the moon, it noted the time and location, and inserted a rendering of what the moon should look like from that place at that time, totally fake.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
'notoriously difficult to change' - depends which constitution you are looking at. For example, the German constitution has been amended 60 times since 1949. Once every year and a quarter on average. A few of those changes fairly major ones.
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
I cannot see this being good news for the Tories.
You don't get good news for the Tories on days with a "y" in them any more.
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"
It's still a live issue with the railways now, around which a lot of care is taken - and even so we still occasionally get incidents - e.g. this one in 2010 where a driver dozed off whilst coasting gently up to a signal going up Shap, and after coming to a stand the train rolled away backward for a couple of miles...
Must be quite difficult to keep concentration with nothing happening around you! Try driving on a deserted motorway……. not that it’s easy to find on in UK nowadays.
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
I cannot see this being good news for the Tories.
If it’s not Farage coming back, it’s going to be a Tory MP crossing the floor.
Tice getting his ducks in a row ahead of an election announcement?
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
'notoriously difficult to change' - depends which constitution you are looking at. For example, the German constitution has been amended 60 times since 1949. Once every year and a quarter on average. A few of those changes fairly major ones.
The record in Ireland is 30 referendum votes in favour of changing the constitution, 13 votes against.
So it's not that unusual for the government to lose votes like this.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
Better than our fake made up ones that can be changed to suit any clowns viewpoint and abused royally at every cut and turn of a venal politician's whim.
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
I cannot see this being good news for the Tories.
Anderson defecting would be good news for the Tories.
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
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"
It's still a live issue with the railways now, around which a lot of care is taken - and even so we still occasionally get incidents - e.g. this one in 2010 where a driver dozed off whilst coasting gently up to a signal going up Shap, and after coming to a stand the train rolled away backward for a couple of miles...
Must be quite difficult to keep concentration with nothing happening around you! Try driving on a deserted motorway……. not that it’s easy to find on in UK nowadays.
My pet hate is driving in the middle of the night on an empty smart motorway with speed restrictions. It's virtually impossible hold a car down at 40mph with three completely empty lanes, it feels so stationary.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Sorry to hear that. What is the exercise assessment (if you are happy to share?)
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"
It's still a live issue with the railways now, around which a lot of care is taken - and even so we still occasionally get incidents - e.g. this one in 2010 where a driver dozed off whilst coasting gently up to a signal going up Shap, and after coming to a stand the train rolled away backward for a couple of miles...
Must be quite difficult to keep concentration with nothing happening around you! Try driving on a deserted motorway……. not that it’s easy to find on in UK nowadays.
My pet hate is driving in the middle of the night on an empty smart motorway with speed restrictions. It's virtually impossible hold a car down at 40mph with three completely empty lanes, it feels so stationary.
Thats where cruise control is great, if you have it.
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"
It's still a live issue with the railways now, around which a lot of care is taken - and even so we still occasionally get incidents - e.g. this one in 2010 where a driver dozed off whilst coasting gently up to a signal going up Shap, and after coming to a stand the train rolled away backward for a couple of miles...
Must be quite difficult to keep concentration with nothing happening around you! Try driving on a deserted motorway……. not that it’s easy to find on in UK nowadays.
My pet hate is driving in the middle of the night on an empty smart motorway with speed restrictions. It's virtually impossible hold a car down at 40mph with three completely empty lanes, it feels so stationary.
Conservative Prospective Candidate for Henley Caroline Newton, on the idea of standing aside for Boris Johnson, tells LBC: “Absolutely not… the idea that a woman would step aside for a man to take a job that he just fancies is absurd” @LBC@TomSwarbrick1 https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1767114799874290010
A few thoughts on this (apologies to Cyclefree for ignoring her excellent header - events, dear girlboy).
Almost certainly a new headline member / appointment. No real possibility of anything else, I think.
It won't be new policy: they're exactly where they need to be on that score and won't want to use up media goodwill by overplaying a teaser for an announcement of minimal public interest. There's not really any direction they could take that wouldn't (1) upset or at least worry existing or potential supporters, or (2) restate what they're already doing. For Reform, policy ambiguity is actually a helpful thing.
Could Tice be about to resign? Maybe, but only in conjunction with the other alternative. He won't be going on his own accord. You don't flag up this sort of thing for a scandal and there's no other reason to quit (unless health, but no signs of that).
So it must be a headline member / appointment. The obvious two would be either Farage returning as leader, or Lee Anderson joining. It may be both. It would be quite hard for Tice, who is no headline act, to remain leader while there's as mouthy a sitting MP for the party as Anderson.
However, if you want an outside bet, might it be Boris? He doesn't have an obvious route back via the Tories, his clock is ticking (he's 62 this year), and the window is open for a realignment on the right.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
A few thoughts on this (apologies to Cyclefree for ignoring her excellent header - events, dear girlboy).
Almost certainly a new headline member / appointment. No real possibility of anything else, I think.
It won't be new policy: they're exactly where they need to be on that score and won't want to use up media goodwill by overplaying a teaser for an announcement of minimal public interest. There's not really any direction they could take that wouldn't (1) upset or at least worry existing or potential supporters, or (2) restate what they're already doing. For Reform, policy ambiguity is actually a helpful thing.
Could Tice be about to resign? Maybe, but only in conjunction with the other alternative. He won't be going on his own accord. You don't flag up this sort of thing for a scandal and there's no other reason to quit (unless health, but no signs of that).
So it must be a headline member / appointment. The obvious two would be either Farage returning as leader, or Lee Anderson joining. It may be both. It would be quite hard for Tice, who is no headline act, to remain leader while there's as mouthy a sitting MP for the party as Anderson.
However, if you want an outside bet, might it be Boris? He doesn't have an obvious route back via the Tories, his clock is ticking (he's 62 this year), and the window is open for a realignment on the right.
I can’t see Boris going to Reform - there is zero chance Boris and Farage could work together and Farage has overall say
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.
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
I think you're right. Someone wanted to put out a photo when no acceptable photo was possible and so fabricated one. "It's OK not to be OK" doesn't extend to royalty. For the first time I feel sorry for Kate. At a young age she wanted to be a princess. Now she can't escape that fate even for a moment.
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.
I am amazed by the amount of over-analysis of this. Well, "amazed" is the wrong word "wearily unsurprised and depressed" would be closer to it...
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Of course, it is utterly laughable that we are allegedly the second most miserable place on the planet when you think about what some people have to endure in their daily lives, but the malaise is real, and we do need some good news stories.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Sorry to hear that. What is the exercise assessment (if you are happy to share?)
I had to do a kind of walking / light jogging bleep test where they monitored my heartrate and pulse, then some strength exercises. Not very taxing, theoretically, but I was knackered after it and apparently 2 days recovery before going on a slow paced 3-4 hour walk was not enough...
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.
SCENE: Bunker somewhere underneath The Mall. Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
I cannot see this being good news for the Tories.
If it’s not Farage coming back, it’s going to be a Tory MP crossing the floor.
Tice getting his ducks in a row ahead of an election announcement?
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
'notoriously difficult to change' - depends which constitution you are looking at. For example, the German constitution has been amended 60 times since 1949. Once every year and a quarter on average. A few of those changes fairly major ones.
The record in Ireland is 30 referendum votes in favour of changing the constitution, 13 votes against.
So it's not that unusual for the government to lose votes like this.
i'm not convinced referendums are the right way to change a constitution
However, if you want an outside bet, might it be Boris? He doesn't have an obvious route back via the Tories, his clock is ticking (he's 62 this year), and the window is open for a realignment on the right.
Two questions.
1. Is Boris interested?
I'm sure he feels hard done by in being pushed out as PM, and would love to be vindicated by a return, but he bottled his one good chance for a comeback when Truss was pushed out.
2. Would Farage be happy to play second fiddle?
Farage absolutely hated the experience of having Carswell as a UKIP MP who wasn't willing to do exactly as he was told. Reform UK is the Farage ego vehicle, I don't think there's room for Boris's ego too.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
I saw the Daily Mail floating the idea of a referendum on ECHR to coincide with a GE to try and prop up the Tory vote - do we think that is an actual possibility or a further right wing fever dream? (Or, to be fair, it could be both).
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Funniest timeline. The number of monarchists who would do a 180 just because they hate Meghan so much would be hilarious to watch.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
I mean, the US constitution is really difficult to amend, and I agree that's bad - but also they did do it quite a lot. Again, the framers really didn't foresee two political parties with such oppositional relationships to each other - they hoped a form of elite consensus would hold the thing together and if it didn't the "vetocracy" they designed would force them to. The whole US system right now is showing it doesn't work - Congress rarely does the things it is supposed to do, the role of POTUS is huge and SCOTUS have made themselves the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in a system that supposedly has three equal branches that hold each other in check.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
The things the Founding Fathers missed, were the emergence of the two-party system and the recent extreme polarisation, that leads to barely a majority for anything, and very little on which most Americans can agree needs to change. They arguably left too much power with the Supreme Court, and didn’t expect lifetime appointments to be abused by the politicians and judges. But overall it’s stood the test of time.
There probably needs to be an attempt at a modern Bill of Rights, but fear that most of the proposals will come from the more extreme political factions trying to codify a ‘win’ for their pet cause.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
Certainly the media are less deferential than they were even when HMTQ was on the throne. I don’t subscribe to any of this conspiracy stuff around this photo, theyve retouched it to probably remove a mark on a sweater or something like that, but the fact that media organisations are calling them out on it is new. And I think is symptomatic of a 24 hour media cycle where the old rules about royals being able to keep their personal lives (at least in some way) private just isn’t tenable anymore. Because people will keep wanting to nudge back the curtain.
Now what that means for the institution is that it needs to be more savvy with its media management, and people like William and Catherine who I am pretty sure just want to make sure they get a family life away from the media glare are also going to have to get more savvy and open. If they don’t want to, then I think they’ll get a rude awakening, because by virtue of being a public figure your business is everyone else’s nowadays.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
Christ not this “William is a cad” bullshit. The rumours about his predilections and his so called affair have all been traced back to originating from certain “Stan” sites who are huge supporters of another Duchess.
Their latest “wheeze” was a photoshopped picture of Kate with a brutally battered face along with a grim story that linked her op with awful domestic violence, infidelity and culminating in the death of that chap the other week linked to the royals.
There is knockabout rumour and nasty vindictive shit, this is all the latter.
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.
Skyhooks would be better. Or Fractional Orbital Coffee Bombardment Systems. Entirely sensible solutions. Elon's probably working on it right now. For coffee. Honest. Yes, that was it...
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
There was only 1 constituency which voted in favour - Dun Laoghaire - and by only 50.3%.
I think though it would be foolish to assume this was because of priests' influence. A lot of feminist groups were against the proposals. The opposition came from all sorts of quarters and thinking this is a victory for those who want to return to the 1930's or 1950's is the wrong take. IMO anyway.
The proposals lost almost everywhere, but the biggest No votes were from conservative Catholic areas. The Yes campaign failed to mobilise the modern, liberal electorate of the cities, for the reasons you lay out in the article, but it was the forces of conservatism, not feminism, that delivered the killing blow to the plan.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
The more this goes on, the saner the Sussexes look for getting out.
Has the British Monarchy become a gilded torture chamber?
I saw the Daily Mail floating the idea of a referendum on ECHR to coincide with a GE to try and prop up the Tory vote - do we think that is an actual possibility or a further right wing fever dream? (Or, to be fair, it could be both).
It could only happen if SKS supported it, and he could convince enough of his Lords to go along with it. Otherwise it would be pretty easy for the Lords to sink it.
I see it more as part of the internal Tory struggle over the future direction of the party.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
Christ not this “William is a cad” bullshit. The rumours about his predilections and his so called affair have all been traced back to originating from certain “Stan” sites who are huge supporters of another Duchess.
Their latest “wheeze” was a photoshopped picture of Kate with a brutally battered face along with a grim story that linked her op with awful domestic violence, infidelity and culminating in the death of that chap the other week linked to the royals.
There is knockabout rumour and nasty vindictive shit, this is all the latter.
You evidently don't speak to the right people about what is common knowledge.
"Common" being about as far from the operative word as it is possible to get.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
Christ not this “William is a cad” bullshit. The rumours about his predilections and his so called affair have all been traced back to originating from certain “Stan” sites who are huge supporters of another Duchess.
Their latest “wheeze” was a photoshopped picture of Kate with a brutally battered face along with a grim story that linked her op with awful domestic violence, infidelity and culminating in the death of that chap the other week linked to the royals.
There is knockabout rumour and nasty vindictive shit, this is all the latter.
I mean, it is a long tradition for the monarchs to have a wife and then the bit on the side - you need only look at our current King who ended up making his mistress his wife in the end.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
The tricky thing is that those who "hate" the Monarchy are really a very small number of people, and the country is tired of political drama. On the other hand while it seems that SKS is preparing some genuinely radical changes in the administration of the country, you can bet that such announcements will made from a leather desk and green lamp, Jim Hacker style, rather than with a whizz bang tv presentation set.
We wouldn´t set up a new monarchy, and arguably we made a mistake in 1660, but people like the tinsel and the human interest stories of the Royal family, so I think it is best to avoid being seen as a Grinch on the issue. Change comes to the Crown eventually but incrementally, and quite slowly. After all the radicalism of the past decade, I think the country just wants a bit of peace and quiet... Even ties are making a comeback, so fashion seems to be capturing the zeitgeist better than we dc here on PB.
It's obvious. Kate Middleton is about to join Reform and stand as a candidate in a winnable seat. She's been sucked into far-right rabbit holes - probably as a kind of reaction to Megan's ultra-wokery - and William and the King have been unsuccessfully trying to deprogram her over the last few months. The AI photo was designed to fool Tice into thinking she's back to her normal, wholesome self, whereas in reality she's locked in a cellar somewhere raving about close-proximity shopping centres and Sadiq Khan.
A suggestion: If UK people, especially women, were offered a choice to have a constitution which stated that it would be economically realistic for parent carers to stay at home and not work during early years of children's lives, but that this was not compulsory, I think we would vote for it in large numbers.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
And on the referendums, Wikipedia reports on an exit poll: "It found that only Fine Gael and Green Party supporters had a majority voting Yes in the Care Referendum, with Labour Party supporters evenly split. All other party supporters voted against the Care amendment by a margin of greater than 70 per cent. In the Family Referendum, supporters of Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and Independents overwhelmingly voted No, while supporters of Fine Gael, the Green Party, Social Democrats and People Before Profit voted Yes. Reasons for voting No in the Family referendum included lack of clarity in the wording and opposition to, or distrust of the government. Reasons for voting No in the Care referendum included vague or poor wording, and concerns about government responsibility and support for carers."
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
I mean, the US constitution is really difficult to amend, and I agree that's bad - but also they did do it quite a lot. Again, the framers really didn't foresee two political parties with such oppositional relationships to each other - they hoped a form of elite consensus would hold the thing together and if it didn't the "vetocracy" they designed would force them to. The whole US system right now is showing it doesn't work - Congress rarely does the things it is supposed to do, the role of POTUS is huge and SCOTUS have made themselves the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in a system that supposedly has three equal branches that hold each other in check.
Well, yes. But that's just saying that constitutions are necessary, but not sufficient for a functioning democracy.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
The tricky thing is that those who "hate" the Monarchy are really a very small number of people, and the country is tired of political drama. On the other hand while it seems that SKS is preparing some genuinely radical changes in the administration of the country, you can bet that such announcements will made from a leather desk and green lamp, Jim Hacker style, rather than with a whizz bang tv presentation set.
We wouldn´t set up a new monarchy, and arguably we made a mistake in 1660, but people like the tinsel and the human interest stories of the Royal family, so I think it is best to avoid being seen as a Grinch on the issue. Change comes to the Crown eventually but incrementally, and quite slowly. After all the radicalism of the past decade, I think the country just wants a bit of peace and quiet... Even ties are making a comeback, so fashion seems to be capturing the zeitgeist better than we dc here on PB.
Yes and no - I agree I think people want a bit of peace and quiet, but I also think they want their material conditions improved. And if they aren't, even under a new government with a new party, then they're going to be very angry. And at times like that, lots of things can happen - especially if the monarchy is racked with random stuff like this happening. Imagine Charley dying and another coronation under a Labour government where food costs and rent are still high. Chaz doesn't have the star power Lizzie did, so fewer people are going to make the argument about respecting the individual even if you don't respect the office. And one monarch dying is sad, two in quick succession looks like a problem.
The whole argument for monarchy is about creating some form of stability. They don't have the power to enforce stability on the country anymore, so the "firm" are supposed to be stable in their roles. And yet, they're faltering. "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold".
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
I mean, the US constitution is really difficult to amend, and I agree that's bad - but also they did do it quite a lot. Again, the framers really didn't foresee two political parties with such oppositional relationships to each other - they hoped a form of elite consensus would hold the thing together and if it didn't the "vetocracy" they designed would force them to. The whole US system right now is showing it doesn't work - Congress rarely does the things it is supposed to do, the role of POTUS is huge and SCOTUS have made themselves the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in a system that supposedly has three equal branches that hold each other in check.
Well, yes. But that's just saying that constitutions are necessary, but not sufficient for a functioning democracy.
A constitution on its own cannot guarantee that.
Yeah, I agree. That's why I'm generally in favour of a written constitution for the UK (especially one that is understandable to the layman) - but that wouldn't solve the issue.
Yes, I wonder why this Irish proposal failed. It's heart looks in the right place, ie aiming to bring the Constitution up to date.
On the Care proposal: The State would no longer endeavour to ensure that mothers can afford to stay at home and fulfil their care duties - instead it was going to strive to support all family members in undertaking care duties.
Deconstructing, there are 2 changes:
(1) "Endeavour to ensure" is replaced by "strive to support"
Is that a problem? Does this language change represent a watering down of the state's obligations?
(2) It says all family members, not just mothers, have a duty of care to each other.
Is that more the problem? Do the majority still feel more comfortable singling out women and mothers as being responsible for this?
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Subtle trolling needs to be, you know, subtle.
Royalty will continue as it always has done, William is next in line, and he’s in his 40s and in good health as far as we know. If for any reason he wasn’t, then Edward or Anne could be a Regent for George.
It was reported that one of the only Times the late Queen raised her voice in her later years, was to berate William for turning up at Sandringham in a helicopter with his entire family - because a tragic accident there would have generated a genuine crisis.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
The things the Founding Fathers missed, were the emergence of the two-party system and the recent extreme polarisation, that leads to barely a majority for anything, and very little on which most Americans can agree needs to change. They arguably left too much power with the Supreme Court, and didn’t expect lifetime appointments to be abused by the politicians and judges. But overall it’s stood the test of time.
There probably needs to be an attempt at a modern Bill of Rights, but fear that most of the proposals will come from the more extreme political factions trying to codify a ‘win’ for their pet cause.
There was one such attempt with the Equal Rights Amendment in the early seventies. It is admirably simple, and had bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. And then stalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
It's entirely right, I think, that constitutional amendments should require supermajorities, as a way of ensuring that they have cross party support, but the US hurdles are excessive.
Watching this knowing that these brothers went on to gang rape a 13yo is pretty alarming
Here's a part of the 20 minute BBC documentary about a child rapist, described by one MP as 'fawning', which includes the line: "The Syrian men in many ways appeared less sexually experienced than the girls they were supposed to have attacked.”
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Dunno. We shall see. Kate is as we know a saint and if William has been off shagging while she has been on her sickbed I'm not sure how much people will be prepared to tolerate it.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Subtle trolling needs to be, you know, subtle.
Royalty will continue as it always has done, William is next in line, and he’s in his 40s and in good health as far as we know. If for any reason he wasn’t, then Edward or Anne could be a Regent for George.
It was reported that one of the only Times the late Queen raised her voice in her later years, was to berate William for turning up at Sandringham in a helicopter with his entire family - because a tragic accident there would have generated a genuine crisis.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
Both of those are included in your broad brush description.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
Christ not this “William is a cad” bullshit. The rumours about his predilections and his so called affair have all been traced back to originating from certain “Stan” sites who are huge supporters of another Duchess.
Their latest “wheeze” was a photoshopped picture of Kate with a brutally battered face along with a grim story that linked her op with awful domestic violence, infidelity and culminating in the death of that chap the other week linked to the royals.
There is knockabout rumour and nasty vindictive shit, this is all the latter.
I mean, it is a long tradition for the monarchs to have a wife and then the bit on the side - you need only look at our current King who ended up making his mistress his wife in the end.
Well, "bit on the side" is a bit rude. One could say it's a long tradition for the monarch to have a wife forced upon him by protocol and a mistress who he really loves.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible for President ie the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them and jail them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Comments
However, the existing wording ignores the way my family live our lives, and (if we lived in Ireland) would not include us. That is why the current wording is wrong. It is, by its very nature, unequal.
"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."
And a father in the same situation cannot currently appeal to the existing care article, even if he is giving the same support as the woman. Because the clause says only a woman can give that support.
If there are 117 references to men, get rid of those where they're not needed as well.
I think though it would be foolish to assume this was because of priests' influence. A lot of feminist groups were against the proposals. The opposition came from all sorts of quarters and thinking this is a victory for those who want to return to the 1930's or 1950's is the wrong take. IMO anyway.
But I'm talking about purposive manipulations - erasing selected individuals, for example.
If your phone could do that without your intervention, how could you trust even images you yourself had taken ?
After defeats in referendums on abortion and same sex marriage recently and decades before on divorce the Vatican will be delighted with the referendum results and see them as a win for their view of the traditional family and the place of mothers in the home
A bit like the AV vote those years ago. It might have been imperfect and but a step on the road to PR but the categorical rejection of the idea meant all further progress was stopped in its tracks.
One of the strongest opponents of the care amendment is a male member of the Irish Dail who is a single father of a disabled child. His views on why he was so opposed are worth reading. I was surprised by the vehemence. FWIW I think opposition to the care proposals may have bled into opposition to the family one.
Ultimately what was proposed was not seen as better than what currently exists. That's why the vote was No. No amount of criticism - however justified - of what you currently have will work if the changes are are not seen as better by enough people.
The no vote is very much a victory for McDowell - he was a constant presence in the media arguing for no votes, and is now considering a run for President, or perhaps a new political party (again). There was also a lot of air time on the care referendum from advocates for a more radical change, that would give disabled people more rights and not place the burden of caregiving on women within the home.
People didn't vote no because the church told them to.
What you are talking about is difference in degree.
A smart lawyer might be able to get phone camera pictures thrown out as evidence - *now*
The return of Farage?
https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/uncontrolled-freight-train-run-back-between-shap-and-tebay-cumbria#:~:text=In the early hours of,stand at 02:09 hrs.
Imagine all iPhones not recording Malmesbury in any photographs.
Richard Rice and an anonymous, muscular gentleman dressed in black.
"So, Tice. My name doesn't matter, but I work for The King. But of a hooh-hah about these photos, we need a distraction. It's your patriotic duty to provide that by calling a Press Conference..."
Camera makers are starting to roll out digital watermark systems onto professional cameras, to allow journalists and editors to prove that an image is unaltered since it was taken. https://nikonrumors.com/2024/01/09/nikon-announced-a-partnership-with-agence-france-press-for-a-new-digital-watermark-image-provenance-function-for-authentication-purposes.aspx/
Unless its Braverman? Or BORIS!
Tice getting his ducks in a row ahead of an election announcement?
So it's not that unusual for the government to lose votes like this.
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Increases the average IQ for both parties.
https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1767114799874290010
Almost certainly a new headline member / appointment. No real possibility of anything else, I think.
It won't be new policy: they're exactly where they need to be on that score and won't want to use up media goodwill by overplaying a teaser for an announcement of minimal public interest. There's not really any direction they could take that wouldn't (1) upset or at least worry existing or potential supporters, or (2) restate what they're already doing. For Reform, policy ambiguity is actually a helpful thing.
Could Tice be about to resign? Maybe, but only in conjunction with the other alternative. He won't be going on his own accord. You don't flag up this sort of thing for a scandal and there's no other reason to quit (unless health, but no signs of that).
So it must be a headline member / appointment. The obvious two would be either Farage returning as leader, or Lee Anderson joining. It may be both. It would be quite hard for Tice, who is no headline act, to remain leader while there's as mouthy a sitting MP for the party as Anderson.
However, if you want an outside bet, might it be Boris? He doesn't have an obvious route back via the Tories, his clock is ticking (he's 62 this year), and the window is open for a realignment on the right.
A new poll has revealed the UK is the second most miserable place in the world
One issue cited is a lack of trust in political leaders, with chaos in Westminster, changing prime ministers & partygate
This country is on its knees. We need a general election NOW. https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1767119245786124455agree.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
1. Is Boris interested?
I'm sure he feels hard done by in being pushed out as PM, and would love to be vindicated by a return, but he bottled his one good chance for a comeback when Truss was pushed out.
2. Would Farage be happy to play second fiddle?
Farage absolutely hated the experience of having Carswell as a UKIP MP who wasn't willing to do exactly as he was told. Reform UK is the Farage ego vehicle, I don't think there's room for Boris's ego too.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
There probably needs to be an attempt at a modern Bill of Rights, but fear that most of the proposals will come from the more extreme political factions trying to codify a ‘win’ for their pet cause.
Now what that means for the institution is that it needs to be more savvy with its media management, and people like William and Catherine who I am pretty sure just want to make sure they get a family life away from the media glare are also going to have to get more savvy and open. If they don’t want to, then I think they’ll get a rude awakening, because by virtue of being a public figure your business is everyone else’s nowadays.
Their latest “wheeze” was a photoshopped picture of Kate with a brutally battered face along with a grim story that linked her op with awful domestic violence, infidelity and culminating in the death of that chap the other week linked to the royals.
There is knockabout rumour and nasty vindictive shit, this is all the latter.
Has the British Monarchy become a gilded torture chamber?
I see it more as part of the internal Tory struggle over the future direction of the party.
"Common" being about as far from the operative word as it is possible to get.
We wouldn´t set up a new monarchy, and arguably we made a mistake in 1660, but people like the tinsel and the human interest stories of the Royal family, so I think it is best to avoid being seen as a Grinch on the issue. Change comes to the Crown eventually but incrementally, and quite slowly. After all the radicalism of the past decade, I think the country just wants a bit of peace and quiet... Even ties are making a comeback, so fashion seems to be capturing the zeitgeist better than we dc here on PB.
A suggestion: If UK people, especially women, were offered a choice to have a constitution which stated that it would be economically realistic for parent carers to stay at home and not work during early years of children's lives, but that this was not compulsory, I think we would vote for it in large numbers.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
But that's just saying that constitutions are necessary, but not sufficient for a functioning democracy.
A constitution on its own cannot guarantee that.
The whole argument for monarchy is about creating some form of stability. They don't have the power to enforce stability on the country anymore, so the "firm" are supposed to be stable in their roles. And yet, they're faltering. "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold".
On the Care proposal: The State would no longer endeavour to ensure that mothers can afford to stay at home and fulfil their care duties - instead it was going to strive to support all family members in undertaking care duties.
Deconstructing, there are 2 changes:
(1) "Endeavour to ensure" is replaced by "strive to support"
Is that a problem? Does this language change represent a watering down of the state's obligations?
(2) It says all family members, not just mothers, have a duty of care to each other.
Is that more the problem? Do the majority still feel more comfortable singling out women and mothers as being responsible for this?
Royalty will continue as it always has done, William is next in line, and he’s in his 40s and in good health as far as we know. If for any reason he wasn’t, then Edward or Anne could be a Regent for George.
It was reported that one of the only Times the late Queen raised her voice in her later years, was to berate William for turning up at Sandringham in a helicopter with his entire family - because a tragic accident there would have generated a genuine crisis.
It is admirably simple, and had bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. And then stalled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
It's entirely right, I think, that constitutional amendments should require supermajorities, as a way of ensuring that they have cross party support, but the US hurdles are excessive.
Here's a part of the 20 minute BBC documentary about a child rapist, described by one MP as 'fawning', which includes the line: "The Syrian men in many ways appeared less sexually experienced than the girls they were supposed to have attacked.”
https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1766747273856205139?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://twitter.com/notbenfish/status/1766968335441252358
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible for President ie the
candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them and jail them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
https://x.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1765857011378364773?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q