All hereditaries must go - there is simply no excuse for it - but I'm out of whack in that I do not want to see an elected upper chamber. We have more than enough voting as it is. Voting is essential to democracy but it is not the same as democracy. You need some voting (obviously) but it's facile and mistaken to assume that the more voting there is the more democratic a society you have.
I support an appointed upper chamber. Routes into it to be many and varied and designed such as to get a good micro facsimile of the population as a whole. Young, old, male, female, arts, crafts, scientists, business, tech, finance, white collar, blue collar, all in there if they are willing and sufficiently able. Part time only, modestly remunerated, serve one fixed term of two years then replaced with somebody else. No parties (political or otherwise).
We could have a randomly selected 'House of People' to go with the elected 'House of Politicians'.
Didn't the Greeks try that?
I seem to remember it was a load of balls.
Wasn't it black and white pebbles for the Romans and broken potsherds for the Greeks ?
Psephology is from the Greek psephos, 'pebble', because the Greeks used pebble to vote.
A pedant notes that using one pebble to vote is not very democratic.
But conclusive!
Could we write numbers on the pebbles? a kind of PTV? Pebble transferable vote?
Can I hurriedly divert the thread by telling everyone how following a ticket issue on the Underground I was refunded with...
*whisper it*
cash....
My sympathies. A bizarre example of a refund being made in a pointless and antiquated form of barter that the refunder itself doesn’t accept. A collectors’ item of a case study!
I was at the post office yesterday and I overpaid apparently on my card by 20p
The cashier refunded the 20p in cash, not back to my card
There are no circumstances under which Sir Gavin 'Huawei' Williamson speaks for anyone but himself and his chums.
He's right on this.
No he isn't. We had the argument about the nature of the HoL a decade ago and the answer is clear: it shouldn't be a democratically elected body, but instead a collection of experts and interest groups to advise, amend, and delay.
Actually, we had the argument 114 years ago and the 1911 Parliament Act includes the following by way of introduction:
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis"
The Commons has far too much power already - or, more accurately, a prime minister with a comfortable majority has far too much unchecked power. A Senate, elected from the regions by STV, would be a useful check on that power. Not necessarily co-equal but certainly more in that direction than as present.
For most of parliament's history, the Lords *was* more-or-less equal with the Commons; Britain didn't do too badly from the arrangement. And most other democracies have second chambers with substantially more power than the Lords does, and get by well enough.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
Disestablishment is a three sided triangle. The church has bishops in the HoL, the King is the head of the church, and the PM appoints archbishops. Either all three should stop at the same time, or all three should continue until we're ready to stop all three.
In Scotland Jesus Christ is head of their church, which makes sense
The main block to Lords reform is sheer apathy. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is probably more au fait with the rules of Love Island than the roles and workings of the Upper Chamber.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Disestablishment is a three sided triangle. The church has bishops in the HoL, the King is the head of the church, and the PM appoints archbishops. Either all three should stop at the same time, or all three should continue until we're ready to stop all three.
In Scotland Jesus Christ is head of their church, which makes sense
Sure, but he still needs middle managers, of various different titles depending on the church.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
On 2, seems probable on the police's recent form.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
IIRC the City of London Police regard the Met as a bunch of chancers.
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
Can I hurriedly divert the thread by telling everyone how following a ticket issue on the Underground I was refunded with...
*whisper it*
cash....
My sympathies. A bizarre example of a refund being made in a pointless and antiquated form of barter that the refunder itself doesn’t accept. A collectors’ item of a case study!
I was at the post office yesterday and I overpaid apparently on my card by 20p
The cashier refunded the 20p in cash, not back to my card
Disestablishment is a three sided triangle. The church has bishops in the HoL, the King is the head of the church, and the PM appoints archbishops. Either all three should stop at the same time, or all three should continue until we're ready to stop all three.
In Scotland Jesus Christ is head of their church, which makes sense
Sure, but he still needs middle managers, of various different titles depending on the church.
Can I hurriedly divert the thread by telling everyone how following a ticket issue on the Underground I was refunded with...
*whisper it*
cash....
My sympathies. A bizarre example of a refund being made in a pointless and antiquated form of barter that the refunder itself doesn’t accept. A collectors’ item of a case study!
I was at the post office yesterday and I overpaid apparently on my card by 20p
The cashier refunded the 20p in cash, not back to my card
Marvellous, and so revealing of the cultural abd psychological backdrop of Brexit
The loony hereditary protestor that I remember from 1999 seems to have been been Lord Burford, a descendant of an illegitimate son of Charles Ii. "This law must be stopped. It is the abolition of Britain ! It was made in Brusseis !"
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
Only a philistine with no sense of beauty, tradition and heritage could say such a thing.
Zadok the Prince and the Orthodox chant for starters were magnificant
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
On 2, seems probable on the police's recent form.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
IIRC the City of London Police regard the Met as a bunch of chancers.
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
But why the hell do we have a tiny separate police force in the middle of London? And why is the local government structure in the square mile so peculiar?
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
Of course it was boring. Most ceremonies are, and it was a bloody long example of one. I don't quite get what was embarrassing about it though. It was essentially a church service - not my thing at all, and church services are often silly to non-believers - and I'm not really sure how it would magically become non-embarrassing if it had been a non-religious ceremony instead.
Presumably, it would have involved most of the same people - with fewer priests - some dull speeches and possibly singing, signing bits of paper, that kind of thing. Still sounds pretty boring. I know some places have inaugurations which they try to make more interesting, but they still look like dull events.
No, by definition you cannot be a Tory if you do not support the presence of the hereditary peers and C of E Bishops in the Lords as well as the Crown. The modern Conservative Party supported capitalism and free market economics as it absorbed Liberals to add on to Tories to try and defeat Labour to create today's Conservative Party.
So you can be a Conservative and not support Bishops in the Lords as Roman Catholic Williamson does but you cannot be a Tory.
I am also gravely concerned by Williamson aligning with Corbynites in Labour and Green and SNP MPs to try and remove the Bishops. Even Starmer to be fair to him only wishes to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords not the Bishops too but true Tories should oppose him on that as well, supporting the inherited wisdom and experience the hereditaries bring as well as the diocesan Bishops and Archbishops who represent the role our established church has in our nation.
Fellow Roman Catholic Sir Edward Leigh was far more sensible, suggesting 12 C of E bishops remain in the Lords, ie based on seniority but adding some representatives of other denominations and faiths in the upper house as well.
Note too a plurality of Tories want to keep at least a partly appointed House of Lords with an elected element as well.
The majority of Labour and LD voters who join the majority of Reform voters in wanting a fully elected upper house should be wary what they wish for. An elected upper house would likely often have a Conservative and Reform majority if elected midterm of a Labour government and would use that mandate to block outright bills coming from the Labour majority or Labour and LD majority commons
You repeat your nonsense about the purity of being a conservative
You have your view, I have mine and I was confirmed by a Bishop, served as a COE server at communion services until I was 16 and know rhe service inside out but do not support the Bishops in the HOL
Indeed the whole thing needs reform and elected accountability
Let the Bishops stand for election
All well and good BigG but such a view makes you a Radical Liberal not a Tory
Give it a rest
You cannot put me in one of your ludicrous boxes
Ironically, I have given more years of service to the conservatives than you have
I didn't say you weren't a 21st century Conservative, I said you were not a Tory, a term whose definition comes from the late 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries
Are any Conservatives still Tories then?
There might be more rebels/bandits, probably of Irish origin, as per the original tories.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
On 2, seems probable on the police's recent form.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
IIRC the City of London Police regard the Met as a bunch of chancers.
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
But why the hell do we have a tiny separate police force in the middle of London? And why is the local government structure in the square mile so peculiar?
We don't like designing comprehensive systems, even when we do big reorganisations. When talk turns to sui generis or time immemorial it casts a spell on us.
The purpose of the Established Church is to prevent religion.
If you abolish it, it will be replaced with large numbers of active religious types banging on about God, replacing the elderly idiots tentatively offering cups of tea and vague niceness.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
All hereditaries must go - there is simply no excuse for it - but I'm out of whack in that I do not want to see an elected upper chamber. We have more than enough voting as it is. Voting is essential to democracy but it is not the same as democracy. You need some voting (obviously) but it's facile and mistaken to assume that the more voting there is the more democratic a society you have.
I support an appointed upper chamber. Routes into it to be many and varied and designed such as to get a good micro facsimile of the population as a whole. Young, old, male, female, arts, crafts, scientists, business, tech, finance, white collar, blue collar, all in there if they are willing and sufficiently able. Part time only, modestly remunerated, serve one fixed term of two years then replaced with somebody else. No parties (political or otherwise).
We could have a randomly selected 'House of People' to go with the elected 'House of Politicians'.
Didn't the Greeks try that?
I seem to remember it was a load of balls.
Wasn't it black and white pebbles for the Romans and broken potsherds for the Greeks ?
Psephology is from the Greek psephos, 'pebble', because the Greeks used pebble to vote.
A pedant notes that using one pebble to vote is not very democratic.
But conclusive!
Could we write numbers on the pebbles? a kind of PTV? Pebble transferable vote?
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
But what about Zadok the Priest?
I loved the fact that he was holding the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
On 2, seems probable on the police's recent form.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
IIRC the City of London Police regard the Met as a bunch of chancers.
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
But why the hell do we have a tiny separate police force in the middle of London? And why is the local government structure in the square mile so peculiar?
Historically, for both, because of the tendency of the Government to try and "borrow" all the money by Right.
More recently, because they run things effectively. Why break something that isn't broken?
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
But what about Zadok the Priest?
Is he that dude from The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
Only a philistine with no sense of beauty, tradition and heritage could say such a thing.
Zadok the Prince and the Orthodox chant for starters were magnificant
To be honest it is an anachronism but many, like yourself, believe in it but you must accept many do not have your devotion to the Monarchy
Disestablishment is a three sided triangle. The church has bishops in the HoL, the King is the head of the church, and the PM appoints archbishops. Either all three should stop at the same time, or all three should continue until we're ready to stop all three.
In Scotland Jesus Christ is head of their church, which makes sense
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
On 2, seems probable on the police's recent form.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
IIRC the City of London Police regard the Met as a bunch of chancers.
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
But why the hell do we have a tiny separate police force in the middle of London? And why is the local government structure in the square mile so peculiar?
We don't like designing comprehensive systems, even when we do big reorganisations. When talk turns to sui generis or time immemorial it casts a spell on us.
You have a point about the bog standard. But the paradox of a backward looking country is that we have most definitely lost our religion.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Disestablishment is a three sided triangle. The church has bishops in the HoL, the King is the head of the church, and the PM appoints archbishops. Either all three should stop at the same time, or all three should continue until we're ready to stop all three.
Pedant alert!! are their any non 3 sided triangles?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
On a serious point, did those happen in Wales in 1920 ?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
On a serious point, did those happen in Wales in 1920 ?
The Church in Wales doesn't have the numbers of conservative evangelical churches the C of E has, once disestablished such churches could and would refuse marriages and burials and baptisms to local people unless they attend their churches regularly
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Personally I think the Lords could be reformed to provide an excellent revising chamber for not just the commons but also the devolved nations as well, ensuring that the whole UK had a system that was equitable and made sense. It should be 100% elected with representatives who only serve a maximum of two (say) seven year terms and they should be people who have already served society in a senior capacity in either private, public or voluntary sector and also the judicial system.
None of this will happen because Sir Keir Freebie will try to gerrymander it to his own party advantage
The last few years have pretty conclusively proved that an appointed HoL is open to appalling levels of corruption and cronyism (and not just by the Cons).
This is an easy option for the Lab party and it is a sign of their rather cack-handed political skills that they bottled it.
Disestablishment is a three sided triangle. The church has bishops in the HoL, the King is the head of the church, and the PM appoints archbishops. Either all three should stop at the same time, or all three should continue until we're ready to stop all three.
Pedant alert!! are their any non 3 sided triangles?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
To borrow from Cmdr Vimes, it's not essential God show up, but he should feel at home if he does.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
All hereditaries must go - there is simply no excuse for it - but I'm out of whack in that I do not want to see an elected upper chamber. We have more than enough voting as it is. Voting is essential to democracy but it is not the same as democracy. You need some voting (obviously) but it's facile and mistaken to assume that the more voting there is the more democratic a society you have.
I support an appointed upper chamber. Routes into it to be many and varied and designed such as to get a good micro facsimile of the population as a whole. Young, old, male, female, arts, crafts, scientists, business, tech, finance, white collar, blue collar, all in there if they are willing and sufficiently able. Part time only, modestly remunerated, serve one fixed term of two years then replaced with somebody else. No parties (political or otherwise).
We could have a randomly selected 'House of People' to go with the elected 'House of Politicians'.
I don't know if you're joking but I actually would see a place for an element of randomness in the selection. The key is that it's a diverse and diffuse process. What you don't want is some single centralised body running the recruitment. If you have that there's a serious risk of corruption and groupthink.
I think randomly selecting from all those with an honour (excluding those nominated by PMs) every 3 years might work I think. You'd skew a bit older because those people have presumably achieved something but I think that collection of people would add a lot. Plus hard for anyone to stack it because there's thousands of people to choose from historically.
Rep-leaning pollster TIPP has moved the natonal Harris lead back down to 2%. HarrisX, who tend to be at the Rep end of polls, have it tied. So any idea of a Harris push seems a little over-stated (to be generous). ActiVote who are generally at the Dem end have Trump 2% ahead but amazingly, like Fox, would have Harris winning the electoral college! I'll believe that when it happens!
Trump insiders say he is 100% confident of easy victory. Insiders also say the interview cancellations are due to 'exhaustion'. Hmmnn.
Electoral vote yesterday had a helpful table on the result according to the polls being wrong (which they will be - we just don't know by how much or in which direction). https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct17-5.html
That is all the analysis of numerical angelic populations on the head of a pin for today!
The last few years have pretty conclusively proved that an appointed HoL is open to appalling levels of corruption and cronyism (and not just by the Cons).
This is an easy option for the Lab party and it is a sign of their rather cack-handed political skills that they bottled it.
Reforming the house of lords without a fully agreed plan was a disaster waiting to happen - it's best avoided via minor changes now followed by a discussion then implementation after the next election...
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
A long tale in a short sentence. We have not handed on a good world to the next generations... ☹️
I have a recollection of hereditary peers who hardly turned up in the House of Lords from one year to the next enthusiastically voting for the Poll Tax so they could eliminate the ratable tax bills on their own stately piles.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
On 2, seems probable on the police's recent form.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
IIRC the City of London Police regard the Met as a bunch of chancers.
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
But why the hell do we have a tiny separate police force in the middle of London? And why is the local government structure in the square mile so peculiar?
In answer to the second question, because few people live there, but lots of businesses do business there.
Rep-leaning pollster TIPP has moved the natonal Harris lead back down to 2%. HarrisX, who tend to be at the Rep end of polls, have it tied. So any idea of a Harris push seems a little over-stated (to be generous). ActiVote who are generally at the Dem end have Trump 2% ahead but amazingly, like Fox, would have Harris winning the electoral college! I'll believe that when it happens!
Trump insiders say he is 100% confident of easy victory. Insiders also say the interview cancellations are due to 'exhaustion'. Hmmnn.
Electoral vote yesterday had a helpful table on the result according to the polls being wrong (which they will be - we just don't know by how much or in which direction). https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct17-5.html
That is all the analysis of numerical angelic populations on the head of a pin for today!
Trump is always 100% confident of easy victory, that's why he thinks any time he loses, even in NY or California, it must be fraud.
I think we should only have hereditary peers. And, repeal the Parliament Act 1911.
Forward to the Past!
Hereditary peers often have a better sense of public service and duty to their communities, having been linked to the land for centuries, than Life Peers or elected politicians.
Not everything in government is a test of democratic purity.
At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
There are no circumstances under which Sir Gavin 'Huawei' Williamson speaks for anyone but himself and his chums.
He's right on this.
No he isn't. We had the argument about the nature of the HoL a decade ago and the answer is clear: it shouldn't be a democratically elected body, but instead a collection of experts and interest groups to advise, amend, and delay.
Actually, we had the argument 114 years ago and the 1911 Parliament Act includes the following by way of introduction:
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis"
The Commons has far too much power already - or, more accurately, a prime minister with a comfortable majority has far too much unchecked power. A Senate, elected from the regions by STV, would be a useful check on that power. Not necessarily co-equal but certainly more in that direction than as present.
For most of parliament's history, the Lords *was* more-or-less equal with the Commons; Britain didn't do too badly from the arrangement. And most other democracies have second chambers with substantially more power than the Lords does, and get by well enough.
A "Senate" isn't British and STV even less so. We're not a Roman Republic.
The reason HoL Reform has never happened is due to the shit ideas for its alternatives.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
Of course it was boring. Most ceremonies are, and it was a bloody long example of one. I don't quite get what was embarrassing about it though. It was essentially a church service - not my thing at all, and church services are often silly to non-believers - and I'm not really sure how it would magically become non-embarrassing if it had been a non-religious ceremony instead.
Presumably, it would have involved most of the same people - with fewer priests - some dull speeches and possibly singing, signing bits of paper, that kind of thing. Still sounds pretty boring. I know some places have inaugurations which they try to make more interesting, but they still look like dull events.
I don't think the Coronation was dull in the slightest.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
On 2, seems probable on the police's recent form.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
IIRC the City of London Police regard the Met as a bunch of chancers.
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
But why the hell do we have a tiny separate police force in the middle of London? And why is the local government structure in the square mile so peculiar?
In answer to the second question, because few people live there, but lots of businesses do business there.
Loads more than used to. Estimate is over 13 000 now. Went to look at a one bedroom flat in 1996 for £35k there. Decided to blow the deposit on several more years in Asia, instead of being wealthy.
At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
But surely then we'll be left with a backlash of antidisestablishmentarianism ?
At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
But surely then we'll be left with a backlash of antidisestablishmentarianism ?
We can solve that with antiantidisestablishmentarianism.
At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
But surely then we'll be left with a backlash of antidisestablishmentarianism ?
We can solve that with antiantidisestablishmentarianism.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
That must be why it got 19 million viewers in the UK and 400 million worldwide. At least 5% of the world's population and 30% of the UK's are clearly obsessive royal fanciers.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
But surely then we'll be left with a backlash of antidisestablishmentarianism ?
We can solve that with antiantidisestablishmentarianism.
At Junior School we used to have to spell that without writing it down.
I think we should only have hereditary peers. And, repeal the Parliament Act 1911.
Forward to the Past!
Hereditary peers often have a better sense of public service and duty to their communities, having been linked to the land for centuries, than Life Peers or elected politicians.
Not everything in government is a test of democratic purity.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
If her late husband wasn't a practising and baptised Roman Catholic they would have been prohibited from marrying in their RC church by the priest
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
You're clearly not a Trinitarian, like some we could mention.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
That must be why it got 19 million viewers in the UK and 400 million worldwide. At least 5% of the world's population and 30% of the UK's are clearly obsessive royal fanciers.
I watched it too but it didn't enhance my feelings for the crown.
At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
Crap, as I have already stated that just means an end to the right to marriage, funeral or baptism as of right in your local Parish church which plenty of Christians still want
It is not a nonsense to some and I have no issue with it
I have quoted Dave Allen on several occasions
'May your God go with you'
"I am an atheist, thank god!"
Allen was a religious sceptic.[17] He once said he was "what you might call a practising atheist" and often joked, "I'm an atheist, thank God." His scepticism came as a result of his deeply held objections to the rigidity of his strict Catholic schooling. Consequently, religion became an important subject for his humour, especially the Catholic Church and the Church of England, generally mocking church customs and rituals rather than beliefs. In 1998, he explained:
"The hierarchy of everything in my life has always bothered me. I'm bothered by power. People, whoever they might be, whether it's the government, or the policeman in the uniform, or the man on the door—they still irk me a bit. From school, from the first nun that belted me—people used to think of the nice sweet little ladies—they used to knock the fuck out of you, in the most cruel way that they could. They'd find bits of your body that were vulnerable to intense pain—grabbing you by the ear, or by the nose, and lift you, and say 'Don't cry!' It's very hard not to cry. I mean, not from emotion, but pain. The priests were the same. And I sit and watch politicians with great cynicism, total cynicism."
At the end of his act, Allen always signed off with the words "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you."[28]
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
Rep-leaning pollster TIPP has moved the natonal Harris lead back down to 2%. HarrisX, who tend to be at the Rep end of polls, have it tied. So any idea of a Harris push seems a little over-stated (to be generous). ActiVote who are generally at the Dem end have Trump 2% ahead but amazingly, like Fox, would have Harris winning the electoral college! I'll believe that when it happens!
Trump insiders say he is 100% confident of easy victory. Insiders also say the interview cancellations are due to 'exhaustion'. Hmmnn.
Electoral vote yesterday had a helpful table on the result according to the polls being wrong (which they will be - we just don't know by how much or in which direction). https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct17-5.html
That is all the analysis of numerical angelic populations on the head of a pin for today!
What are we expecting turnout to be? At or even above the 65% 2020 mark? Or back down at a more normal 60ish level?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
The idea of marriage itself is weird. A contract we enter into that's kinda legally binding but also not, best case scenario you live happily ever after together (in which case you can do that without the bit of paper), worst case scenario you end up hating each other and then it's a costly and difficult process to disentangle yourself.
As gamblers we should all appreciate that the concept of marriage is largely EV-, with very little financial upside (except tax breaks?) but a whole raft of problems if we lose. And you can live happily ever after together without actually marrying. So why bother?
Apologies again for chewing you out yesterday, by the way, I thought you were having a go at Viewcode, who I'm rather fond of (not least in part because they get all my nerdy sci fi references...)
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
They may well be but as it is the established church a local parishioner who never goes to church is entitled to be married in that church regardless by law
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
The idea of marriage itself is weird. A contract we enter into that's kinda legally binding but also not, best case scenario you live happily ever after together (in which case you can do that without the bit of paper), worst case scenario you end up hating each other and then it's a costly and difficult process to disentangle yourself.
As gamblers we should all appreciate that the concept of marriage is largely EV-, with very little financial upside (except tax breaks?) but a whole raft of problems if we lose. And you can live happily ever after together without actually marrying. So why bother?
Apologies again for chewing you out yesterday, by the way, I thought you were having a go at Viewcode, who I'm rather fond of (not least in part because they get all my nerdy sci fi references...)
People ALWAYS believe in marriage - UNTIL they want a divorce!
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
HYUFD is committing the Roger fallacy of comparing the best thing from one set with the worst from another. I've been to dozens of weddings bith religious and secular, and its certainly not the case that one is obviously nice than the other. Personally, we went secular; I don't believe, and don't enjoy the insincerity of going through the motions in front of a God I don't believe in, nor public singing while sober. But if my wife had been religious I would have happily acceded. And there is something lovely, as Big G alludes, to marrying somewhere, and in the same way, that generations and generations before have done. There's not many occasions in your life when you get to carry on a tradition, and I can think of few more appropriate reasons to do so.
*Happy sigh* My wedding day was the best day of my life by a country mile.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
Of course it was boring. Most ceremonies are, and it was a bloody long example of one. I don't quite get what was embarrassing about it though. It was essentially a church service - not my thing at all, and church services are often silly to non-believers - and I'm not really sure how it would magically become non-embarrassing if it had been a non-religious ceremony instead.
Presumably, it would have involved most of the same people - with fewer priests - some dull speeches and possibly singing, signing bits of paper, that kind of thing. Still sounds pretty boring. I know some places have inaugurations which they try to make more interesting, but they still look like dull events.
I don't think the Coronation was dull in the slightest.
In fact, I found it quite moving and magical.
The myths that bind. I'm rather less sneery about it since (recently) doing "Sapiens". Still a little bit sneery though.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
I thought the service itself was not bad at all.
I think what needs to be scaled back a little is the often, overblown and anachronistic military pageantry at either side of Royal events, not necessarily the events themselves.
Rep-leaning pollster TIPP has moved the natonal Harris lead back down to 2%. HarrisX, who tend to be at the Rep end of polls, have it tied. So any idea of a Harris push seems a little over-stated (to be generous). ActiVote who are generally at the Dem end have Trump 2% ahead but amazingly, like Fox, would have Harris winning the electoral college! I'll believe that when it happens!
Trump insiders say he is 100% confident of easy victory. Insiders also say the interview cancellations are due to 'exhaustion'. Hmmnn.
Electoral vote yesterday had a helpful table on the result according to the polls being wrong (which they will be - we just don't know by how much or in which direction). https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct17-5.html
That is all the analysis of numerical angelic populations on the head of a pin for today!
Trump is always 100% confident of easy victory, that's why he thinks any time he loses, even in NY or California, it must be fraud.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
If her late husband wasn't a practising and baptised Roman Catholic they would have been prohibited from marrying in their RC church by the priest
At the time of their marriage he was. He and my sister didn’t live in the same parish, CofE or RC.
Rep-leaning pollster TIPP has moved the natonal Harris lead back down to 2%. HarrisX, who tend to be at the Rep end of polls, have it tied. So any idea of a Harris push seems a little over-stated (to be generous). ActiVote who are generally at the Dem end have Trump 2% ahead but amazingly, like Fox, would have Harris winning the electoral college! I'll believe that when it happens!
Trump insiders say he is 100% confident of easy victory. Insiders also say the interview cancellations are due to 'exhaustion'. Hmmnn.
Electoral vote yesterday had a helpful table on the result according to the polls being wrong (which they will be - we just don't know by how much or in which direction). https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct17-5.html
That is all the analysis of numerical angelic populations on the head of a pin for today!
What are we expecting turnout to be? At or even above the 65% 2020 mark? Or back down at a more normal 60ish level?
Fuck* knows.
*Fuck obviously has a cracking security clearance and reads all his briefing papers. He knows everything.
I hope they never get rid of hereditaries, I think it's hilarious the temporary solution from 1999 is still ongoing 25 years on.
You've got to keep it real.
It's very cool that they can have by-elections where the Duke of Wellington beats the Marquess of Abergavenny.
I always go back to my favourite by-election, to replace Lord Avebury. For some reasons in some cases the whole House votes, and other times only a particular group can, and in that case it was LD heriditary members.
7 candidates, 3 eligible voters.
The end result? 3 votes for one candidate.
That candidate? Previous member of the House of Lords then MP Viscount Thurso (who didn't even submit a statement on why he should be elected).
Rep-leaning pollster TIPP has moved the natonal Harris lead back down to 2%. HarrisX, who tend to be at the Rep end of polls, have it tied. So any idea of a Harris push seems a little over-stated (to be generous). ActiVote who are generally at the Dem end have Trump 2% ahead but amazingly, like Fox, would have Harris winning the electoral college! I'll believe that when it happens!
Trump insiders say he is 100% confident of easy victory. Insiders also say the interview cancellations are due to 'exhaustion'. Hmmnn.
Electoral vote yesterday had a helpful table on the result according to the polls being wrong (which they will be - we just don't know by how much or in which direction). https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct17-5.html
That is all the analysis of numerical angelic populations on the head of a pin for today!
Trump is always 100% confident of easy victory, that's why he thinks any time he loses, even in NY or California, it must be fraud.
I'll still just flip a coin for the outcome.
Don't do that. You need a view going in.
I think Trump will edge it in some key states like Arizona, the GOP have been more prepared to be obstructive this time.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
I thought the service itself was not bad at all.
I think what needs to be scaled back a little is the often, overblown and anachronistic military pageantry at either side of Royal events, not necessarily the events themselves.
It’s modern crowns that I find a bit absurd. Medieval hollow crowns and circlets are a lot more elegant.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
Comments
The cashier refunded the 20p in cash, not back to my card
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis"
The Commons has far too much power already - or, more accurately, a prime minister with a comfortable majority has far too much unchecked power. A Senate, elected from the regions by STV, would be a useful check on that power. Not necessarily co-equal but certainly more in that direction than as present.
For most of parliament's history, the Lords *was* more-or-less equal with the Commons; Britain didn't do too badly from the arrangement. And most other democracies have second chambers with substantially more power than the Lords does, and get by well enough.
Oh, sorry, you meant working to prevent it?
The CoL Police are well down the scoreboard of crimes committed.
The loony hereditary protestor that I remember from 1999 seems to have been been Lord Burford, a descendant of an illegitimate son of Charles Ii. "This law must be stopped. It is the abolition of Britain ! It was made in Brusseis !"
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population
Zadok the Prince and the Orthodox chant for starters were magnificant
Presumably, it would have involved most of the same people - with fewer priests - some dull speeches and possibly singing, signing bits of paper, that kind of thing. Still sounds pretty boring. I know some places have inaugurations which they try to make more interesting, but they still look like dull events.
If you abolish it, it will be replaced with large numbers of active religious types banging on about God, replacing the elderly idiots tentatively offering cups of tea and vague niceness.
I have quoted Dave Allen on several occasions
'May your God go with you'
https://www.wigantoday.net/news/courts/corrupt-wigan-cop-who-dealt-cocaine-jailed-for-19-years-4830517
More recently, because they run things effectively. Why break something that isn't broken?
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
are their any non 3 sided triangles?
None of this will happen because Sir Keir Freebie will try to gerrymander it to his own party advantage
This is an easy option for the Lab party and it is a sign of their rather cack-handed political skills that they bottled it.
Some hotels fit the bill.
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
Rep-leaning pollster TIPP has moved the natonal Harris lead back down to 2%. HarrisX, who tend to be at the Rep end of polls, have it tied. So any idea of a Harris push seems a little over-stated (to be generous). ActiVote who are generally at the Dem end have Trump 2% ahead but amazingly, like Fox, would have Harris winning the electoral college! I'll believe that when it happens!
Trump insiders say he is 100% confident of easy victory. Insiders also say the interview cancellations are due to 'exhaustion'. Hmmnn.
Electoral vote yesterday had a helpful table on the result according to the polls being wrong (which they will be - we just don't know by how much or in which direction). https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct17-5.html
That is all the analysis of numerical angelic populations on the head of a pin for today!
I'll still just flip a coin for the outcome.
Not everything in government is a test of democratic purity.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
The reason HoL Reform has never happened is due to the shit ideas for its alternatives.
In fact, I found it quite moving and magical.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
Went to look at a one bedroom flat in 1996 for £35k there.
Decided to blow the deposit on several more years in Asia, instead of being wealthy.
It's very cool that they can have by-elections where the Duke of Wellington beats the Marquess of Abergavenny.
Allen was a religious sceptic.[17] He once said he was "what you might call a practising atheist" and often joked, "I'm an atheist, thank God." His scepticism came as a result of his deeply held objections to the rigidity of his strict Catholic schooling. Consequently, religion became an important subject for his humour, especially the Catholic Church and the Church of England, generally mocking church customs and rituals rather than beliefs. In 1998, he explained:
"The hierarchy of everything in my life has always bothered me. I'm bothered by power. People, whoever they might be, whether it's the government, or the policeman in the uniform, or the man on the door—they still irk me a bit. From school, from the first nun that belted me—people used to think of the nice sweet little ladies—they used to knock the fuck out of you, in the most cruel way that they could. They'd find bits of your body that were vulnerable to intense pain—grabbing you by the ear, or by the nose, and lift you, and say 'Don't cry!' It's very hard not to cry. I mean, not from emotion, but pain. The priests were the same. And I sit and watch politicians with great cynicism, total cynicism."
At the end of his act, Allen always signed off with the words "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you."[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Allen_(comedian)
As gamblers we should all appreciate that the concept of marriage is largely EV-, with very little financial upside (except tax breaks?) but a whole raft of problems if we lose. And you can live happily ever after together without actually marrying. So why bother?
Apologies again for chewing you out yesterday, by the way, I thought you were having a go at Viewcode, who I'm rather fond of (not least in part because they get all my nerdy sci fi references...)
But if my wife had been religious I would have happily acceded. And there is something lovely, as Big G alludes, to marrying somewhere, and in the same way, that generations and generations before have done. There's not many occasions in your life when you get to carry on a tradition, and I can think of few more appropriate reasons to do so.
*Happy sigh* My wedding day was the best day of my life by a country mile.
I think what needs to be scaled back a little is the often, overblown and anachronistic military pageantry at either side of Royal events, not necessarily the events themselves.
*Fuck obviously has a cracking security clearance and reads all his briefing papers. He knows everything.
7 candidates, 3 eligible voters.
The end result? 3 votes for one candidate.
That candidate? Previous member of the House of Lords then MP Viscount Thurso (who didn't even submit a statement on why he should be elected).
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/publications-records/House-of-Lords-Publications/By-elections/Result-Liberal-Democrat-hereditary-peers-by-election-result-Avebury.pdf.pdf