Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
He didn't escape - he was released.
Don't throw words like escaped round when that is no part of the story - that merely encourages Farage and co.
Plus “escaped” is accusing him (Epping chap) of a crime that he definitely didn’t commit.
That looks the highest Green poll number for some time.
The "split" (Ref/Con vs Lab/LD/Green) is 48-44 with Opinium and 48-47 with Ashcroft.
There's also been a Scottish poll by Survation - details:
Constituency / List %s: 34 / 29 SNP 22 / 20 Reform 18 / 17 Labour 10 / 12 Tories 8 / 10 LibDems 7 / 10 Greens 1 / 2 Alba
Scottish Election Study seat calculator gives: 55 SNP 22 Reform 19 Labour 12 Tory 11 Greens 10 LD 0 Alba
Make of all this nonsense what you will.
Looks like Reform and Labour down, the Greens up and the LDs and Tories holding steady on the Opinium and Ashcroft poll. 30% and 29% for Reform with those 2 polls is well below the 36% they got even in Caerphilly so Farage's party remains very vulnerable to tactical voting against them given they failed to win in the Caerphilly by election.
SNP down to just 55 seats at Holyrood Survation which would be their lowest number of MSPs since 2007. A unionist majority just 3 MSPs short too, so if some tactical votes for Labour on the constituency vote to beat the SNP could well be achieved.
Labour and the Scottish Conservatives both projected to get their lowest number of MSPs since Holyrood was founded in 1999 with Reform and the Greens the main gainers along with the LDs
I struggle to see how a non-SNP Government can be formed on those numbers assuming they will seek the support of the Scottish Greens once again. Indeed, I can't envisage a Reform minority Government backed by Conservatives, Labour and LDs - can you?
I'm also not sure how you equate national polling to a Senedd by-election result. There's an element of truth in that Reform look vulnerable to tactical voting and I'm sure as a Conservative that's a message you'll be putting over in seats where the Tories are the biggest challengers to Reform but what of seats where Reform's biggest challengers are Labour and the Conservatives are third or fourth? Would you encourage Conservative voters in those seats to vote Labour or would you prefer Reform to win large numbers of seats?
I see the asylum seeking nonce has been recaptured.
As broadcast on the BBC
How dare they cover a story of public interest as it makes some uncomfortable !
I think the point is the other 250 criminals who were wrongly released got no attention whatsoever, while the BBC gives the single asylum seeker wall to wall coverage, where asylum seeking and criminality are somewhat conflated. The story has public interest; BBC coverage of it less so.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
What Ed Davey intends is getting his name and his party into the news. There was nothing in the LibDem manifesto about the monarchy so evidently there is no great principle here.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
'..Sun sources can reveal Andrew has been offered an escape route by Abu Dhabi’s super-rich ruler Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
The sheikh has offered free use of a vast royal palace next to an idyllic waterway in the desert kingdom. He is said to have made the gesture to show his gratitude for Andrew’s “kindness” to United Arab Emirates royals when he was the UK’s international business envoy.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/37118388/andrew-offered-lavish-abu-dhabi-palace-royals
As to the elections, I have no expertise to add beyond what is comprehensively covered above.
I've been following Argentina's economy closely and I think Milei, though incredibly brave and right in most respects, will ultimately be thwarted by the nationwide obsession with the dollar exchange rate as a mark of success, which he shares to some extent. Beyond the rarified realm of economic models, a classic sign of an overvalued exchange rate is when Argentinians go shopping en masse, in, or start to retire to, Brazil and Paraguay, and I understand we're seeing quite a lot of that now, But I could be wrong, especially if the dollar weakens significantly.
However, if Milei defies the massive odds against him and reignites a sustainable recovery, it would be yet another small nail in the coffin of our dismal government's illiterate tax and spend economic policy. Would people be saying, as they did with economic miracle West Germany after WWII, "I thought we won the war"?
Good luck to him.
Trying to fight exchange rates is an old, old thing.
Post WWII, the U.K. spent loan after loan from the US on trying to support the pound.
While growing up in the 80s, every tip pot dictator had fixed exchange rate, with a collapsed economy and a lively black market.
Then there was the ERM comedy.
I never understood it. The pressure is there. The cost of holding an artificial exchange rate is large. So you run out of funds and then the movement happens anyway.
Yours right, of course.
But allowing depreciations are effectively telling the entire country that they are poorer than they thought they were. People don't like unpleasant facts.
Which is why it's usually left to financial markets, or the IMF, to break the bad news.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
1. Royal Lodge is owned by the Crown Estate. It is not part of the royal family's personal property.
2. The Crown Estate is an independent corporation which manages a whole load of assets, including land and its profits go back to the Treasury. It's legal obligations are set out in 2 statutes - one in 1961 and one earlier this year.
4. Andrew has a lease on Royal Lodge. Under its terms, he had to pay (and has paid) £8.5 million for the repair of the property and his annual rent is a peppercorn one, though he has continuing obligations to keep the property in a good state of repair. Whether this agreement made good financial / property sense at the time, I cannot say but it would have been reviewed by the Crown Estate legal and property advisors and would, I assume, have had to be signed off by the relevant persons.
5. Whether it now makes sense for him and his ex to live in a house which is far larger than they need and given his personal behaviour and its effects on the working royals is another matter which is separate from whether the Crown Estate handled the decision about the use of this property and the money for it properly or well. It may well have been a sensible agreement at the time.
6. Regardless of Andrew's behaviour, there is something wrong about tearing up lawful contracts because we don't like particular individuals. The rule of law should mean something and there are far too many instances at the moment of all sorts of people and organisations who should know better taking the view that they should simply ignore any laws, judgments or contracts they do not like or which inconveniences them. This is a wrong. We should say so loudly and clearly not indulge this nonsense. It is very Trumpian behaviour and it is one of the many ironies that it is often done by people who claim to despise Trump or who think of themselves as "progressive".
7. Parliament had an opportunity to debate how the Crown Estate should operate when it passed the Crown Estate Act 2025. I wonder how many of the MPs now making a noise about Andrew took the opportunity to do this. It's not as if his difficulties were not known about.
TBC
8. If he leaves the lodge he will ask for, and perhaps get, a monetary settlement. This will look bad. As bad as having him stay? Who knows.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
If you cannot see the political gotcha this is for the media and the utter shambles for the government then you are in denial
It is a representation of a broken prison system. A system this government has not resolved and incumbent governments rightly take the kicking. Please remember it is a prison system that YOUR government broke, and quite possibly ordered an early election before they had to implement THEIR early release programme.
I recall back in the Blair years an RAF bigwig left a CDRom with sensitive defence details on a bus. The press demanded Ministerial resignations. During the 2010 to 2024 government a briefcase with sensitive defence material was stolen from a parked car. The media wanted the car driver sacked.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
Given that the Crown Estates are already legally acountable to Parliament rather than the King and that all the money raised by the Crown Estates goes to HM Government, it seems rather disingenuous for Davey to be 'calling for the Crown Estates to give evidence' to Parliament as if that is not aleady entirely within their remit.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
And these people causing the problems arent the 'Monarchy'. The Monarchy is the monarch and his/her next in line. And if the person next in line is such a bad egg Parliament will choose someone else in line who is suitable. King Charles and Camilla are well liked, Prince William and Kate are well liked, and as far as we know so far their children are also adorable.
No change any time soon.
Indeed, people forget not only Prince William and his children but even Prince Harry and his children Archie and Lilibet are higher in the line of succession and more likely to become monarch of the UK and Commonwealth realms than Andrew now
I see the asylum seeking nonce has been recaptured.
As broadcast on the BBC
How dare they cover a story of public interest as it makes some uncomfortable !
I think the point is the other 250 criminals who were wrongly released got no attention whatsoever, while the BBC gives the single asylum seeker wall to wall coverage, where asylum seeking and criminality are somewhat conflated. The story has public interest; BBC coverage of it less so.
It's not just the BBC of course - it's the Mail, Sky News etc, etc. I'm not quite sure why so many on here single out the BBC for their vitriol - could be the Licence Fee perchance?
In any case, it was always going to be about who this man was and the context rather than anything else. The truth is this has been an appalling blunder which has uncovered a larger issue around the prison service and its competencies which in turn leads back to the neglect of past Conservative Governments as much as the ineptitude of the current Labour Government.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
1. Royal Lodge is owned by the Crown Estate. It is not part of the royal family's personal property.
2. The Crown Estate is an independent corporation which manages a whole load of assets, including land and its profits go back to the Treasury. It's legal obligations are set out in 2 statutes - one in 1961 and one earlier this year.
4. Andrew has a lease on Royal Lodge. Under its terms, he had to pay (and has paid) £8.5 million for the repair of the property and his annual rent is a peppercorn one, though he has continuing obligations to keep the property in a good state of repair. Whether this agreement made good financial / property sense at the time, I cannot say but it would have been reviewed by the Crown Estate legal and property advisors and would, I assume, have had to be signed off by the relevant persons.
5. Whether it now makes sense for him and his ex to live in a house which is far larger than they need and given his personal behaviour and its effects on the working royals is another matter which is separate from whether the Crown Estate handled the decision about the use of this property and the money for it properly or well. It may well have been a sensible agreement at the time.
6. Regardless of Andrew's behaviour, there is something wrong about tearing up lawful contracts because we don't like particular individuals. The rule of law should mean something and there are far too many instances at the moment of all sorts of people and organisations who should know better taking the view that they should simply ignore any laws, judgments or contracts they do not like or which inconveniences them. This is a wrong. We should say so loudly and clearly not indulge this nonsense. It is very Trumpian behaviour and it is one of the many ironies that it is often done by people who claim to despise Trump or who think of themselves as "progressive".
7. Parliament had an opportunity to debate how the Crown Estate should operate when it passed the Crown Estate Act 2025. I wonder how many of the MPs now making a noise about Andrew took the opportunity to do this. It's not as if his difficulties were not known about.
TBC
8. Also a fact, unpopular as it may be to state it, Andrew has never been charged with any criminal offence nor sought for questioning about it by the US criminal authorities. He is - like everyone else - innocent until proven guilty. Innocence under the law is not something reserved only for likeable people. He was asked to give a deposition in the context of US civil proceedings brought against him, which were ultimately settled. The late Virginia Giuffre got a large amount of money in that settlement but no admission of liability nor even an apology.
9. If he has broken the law in other respects, the law should take its course. I suspect that a lot of highly placed individuals - many of them politicians (I could name names but won't) - have met with or done business with or even accepted, money, hospitality and gifts from dubious Chinese individuals or people from other dodgy Eastern European or Middle Eastern countries or even countries such as Australia. It is practically the business plan for a part of Britain's wealth management sector.
10. He is not an asset to the royal family and his personal behaviour, if even a fraction of the stories about him are true, sounds quite ghastly. He is probably quite representative of a certain slice of upper class/rich British males if my own experience of that group is anything to go by. It would be best if he made himself scarce so that we do not have to hear from or see him again. If Parliament wants to remove ducal titles or limit them only to working royals, they would have to pass legislation to do so. It would certainly deal with both Andrew and Harry, but it just shifts the issue to a couple of black sheep calling themselves prince. Personally I don't much care. A title does not confer grace or judgment and vulgarity is pretty widespread among the rich and titled and entitled.
A welcomed dose of Cyclefree acerbity to wake up to.
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
What Ed Davey intends is getting his name and his party into the news. There was nothing in the LibDem manifesto about the monarchy so evidently there is no great principle here.
Leaving aside that all parties develop policy between elections, It's long been Lib Dem policy to go towards a written constitution and remove the remaining prerogative powers.
As to the elections, I have no expertise to add beyond what is comprehensively covered above.
I've been following Argentina's economy closely and I think Milei, though incredibly brave and right in most respects, will ultimately be thwarted by the nationwide obsession with the dollar exchange rate as a mark of success, which he shares to some extent. Beyond the rarified realm of economic models, a classic sign of an overvalued exchange rate is when Argentinians go shopping en masse, in, or start to retire to, Brazil and Paraguay, and I understand we're seeing quite a lot of that now, But I could be wrong, especially if the dollar weakens significantly.
However, if Milei defies the massive odds against him and reignites a sustainable recovery, it would be yet another small nail in the coffin of our dismal government's illiterate tax and spend economic policy. Would people be saying, as they did with economic miracle West Germany after WWII, "I thought we won the war"?
Good luck to him.
Trying to fight exchange rates is an old, old thing.
Post WWII, the U.K. spent loan after loan from the US on trying to support the pound.
While growing up in the 80s, every tip pot dictator had fixed exchange rate, with a collapsed economy and a lively black market.
Then there was the ERM comedy.
I never understood it. The pressure is there. The cost of holding an artificial exchange rate is large. So you run out of funds and then the movement happens anyway.
Yours right, of course.
But allowing depreciations are effectively telling the entire country that they are poorer than they thought they were. People don't like unpleasant facts.
Which is why it's usually left to financial markets, or the IMF, to break the bad news.
The effect varies between socioeconmic demographics.
A lower exchange rate works very well for the middle aged who work in export industries and have DC pensions.
Not hers. She didn’t have enough time. Her message was great, it wasn’t the problem. Neither was she.
Regardless any sane country given the choice between Harris and Trump would have elected her. The fact voters decided to go with Trump is more a reflection of them than Harris who ran a perfectly acceptable campaign .
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
If you cannot see the political gotcha this is for the media and the utter shambles for the government then you are in denial
Oh I see alright.
I remember the years of attacks on the conservatives, Boris, Truss and Sunak and no amount of wishing changed anything, as they were the government and they had no choice but to accept they were unpopular and everything would be another ' gotcha'
And the escapee has been arrested
Yes the 'manhunt' is over. Thank goodness for that. People can relax and start thinking about the Sunday roast.
Not hers. She didn’t have enough time. Her message was great, it wasn’t the problem. Neither was she.
Which is why her popularity got steadily worse as the campaign progressed. The more the American public saw of her, the more they preferred to vote for Donald Trump, that’s how bad she was.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
1. Royal Lodge is owned by the Crown Estate. It is not part of the royal family's personal property.
2. The Crown Estate is an independent corporation which manages a whole load of assets, including land and its profits go back to the Treasury. It's legal obligations are set out in 2 statutes - one in 1961 and one earlier this year.
4. Andrew has a lease on Royal Lodge. Under its terms, he had to pay (and has paid) £8.5 million for the repair of the property and his annual rent is a peppercorn one, though he has continuing obligations to keep the property in a good state of repair. Whether this agreement made good financial / property sense at the time, I cannot say but it would have been reviewed by the Crown Estate legal and property advisors and would, I assume, have had to be signed off by the relevant persons.
5. Whether it now makes sense for him and his ex to live in a house which is far larger than they need and given his personal behaviour and its effects on the working royals is another matter which is separate from whether the Crown Estate handled the decision about the use of this property and the money for it properly or well. It may well have been a sensible agreement at the time.
6. Regardless of Andrew's behaviour, there is something wrong about tearing up lawful contracts because we don't like particular individuals. The rule of law should mean something and there are far too many instances at the moment of all sorts of people and organisations who should know better taking the view that they should simply ignore any laws, judgments or contracts they do not like or which inconveniences them. This is a wrong. We should say so loudly and clearly not indulge this nonsense. It is very Trumpian behaviour and it is one of the many ironies that it is often done by people who claim to despise Trump or who think of themselves as "progressive".
7. Parliament had an opportunity to debate how the Crown Estate should operate when it passed the Crown Estate Act 2025. I wonder how many of the MPs now making a noise about Andrew took the opportunity to do this. It's not as if his difficulties were not known about.
TBC
8. Also a fact, unpopular as it may be to state it, Andrew has never been charged with any criminal offence nor sought for questioning about it by the US criminal authorities. He is - like everyone else - innocent until proven guilty. Innocence under the law is not something reserved only for likeable people. He was asked to give a deposition in the context of US civil proceedings brought against him, which were ultimately settled. The late Virginia Giuffre got a large amount of money in that settlement but no admission of liability nor even an apology.
9. If he has broken the law in other respects, the law should take its course. I suspect that a lot of highly placed individuals - many of them politicians (I could name names but won't) - have met with or done business with or even accepted, money, hospitality and gifts from dubious Chinese individuals or people from other dodgy Eastern European or Middle Eastern countries or even countries such as Australia. It is practically the business plan for a part of Britain's wealth management sector.
10. He is not an asset to the royal family and his personal behaviour, if even a fraction of the stories about him are true, sounds quite ghastly. He is probably quite representative of a certain slice of upper class/rich British males if my own experience of that group is anything to go by. It would be best if he made himself scarce so that we do not have to hear from or see him again. If Parliament wants to remove ducal titles or limit them only to working royals, they would have to pass legislation to do so. It would certainly deal with both Andrew and Harry, but it just shifts the issue to a couple of black sheep calling themselves prince. Personally I don't much care. A title does not confer grace or judgment and vulgarity is pretty widespread among the rich and titled and entitled.
Thanks yet again for a dose of facts rather than opinions on this. It is always good to read a comment and learn something (or quite a few things) I didn't previously know as wll as clarifying those things I only half knew.
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
National and regional party list systems are worse than D'hondt.
Not hers. She didn’t have enough time. Her message was great, it wasn’t the problem. Neither was she.
Which is why her popularity got steadily worse as the campaign progressed. The more the American public saw of her, the more they preferred to vote for Donald Trump, that’s how bad she was.
You’re giving Trump voters an out to excuse their moronic decision . They saw Trump for 8 years and ignored the litany of disgusting and corrupt behaviour . It’s on them .
To be fair the Democratic brand has been radioactive in rural America well before last year, even Obama lost rural America. The Democrats haven't won rural Americans votes since 1996 when Bill Clinton ran for re election and even then Clinton only beat Dole by 1% in rural areas and small towns with Perot getting 10% of the vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
I see the asylum seeking nonce has been recaptured.
As broadcast on the BBC
How dare they cover a story of public interest as it makes some uncomfortable !
I think the point is the other 250 criminals who were wrongly released got no attention whatsoever, while the BBC gives the single asylum seeker wall to wall coverage, where asylum seeking and criminality are somewhat conflated. The story has public interest; BBC coverage of it less so.
How many of the other 250 cases were as prominent as this one.
None I’d wager
The BBC’s coverage is fine. Some people just don’t like it because of the subject matter and who the offender is.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
I remember reading Dan Hannan’s critique of D’Hondt on the eve of one of the European elections, perhaps 2009.
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
He will get deported ultimately as he got a jail sentence of at least 12 months, though seems rather ridiculous to impose a jail sentence if he won't serve it, he should just have been sentenced to be deported in the first place!
Not hers. She didn’t have enough time. Her message was great, it wasn’t the problem. Neither was she.
Regardless any sane country given the choice between Harris and Trump would have elected her. The fact voters decided to go with Trump is more a reflection of them than Harris who ran a perfectly acceptable campaign .
And that’s why the Democrats lost - “Vote for this somewhat average candidate. Because it’s her turn.”
Failed with Hillary. Biden was genuinely good at national level politics. Trying the same again with Harris was just stupid.
Good morning all. And, at time of typing, it is here, although, having looked at the Met Office forecast, I doubt it will last.
On topic, while I applaud the header, which seemed to be a reasonable assessment of the situation, I note that the map of constituencies includes a pair of islands low on the right hand side which do not appear to be represented in the Legislature.
At home I listened with growing disgust to the interview with Chris Philp. He can't help his voice of course, but he really sounded the sort of person who would have been at home with Judge Jeffreys.
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
Both can be correct, can't they? I thought it was fairly common for people to be sent to serve the remainder of their sentence in a prison in their country of origin (by agreement with that country).
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
Finsbury Park eh? Wonder if there’s any place nearby that could have hidden him
Not hers. She didn’t have enough time. Her message was great, it wasn’t the problem. Neither was she.
Which is why her popularity got steadily worse as the campaign progressed. The more the American public saw of her, the more they preferred to vote for Donald Trump, that’s how bad she was.
You’re giving Trump voters an out to excuse their moronic decision . They saw Trump for 8 years and ignored the litany of disgusting and corrupt behaviour . It’s on them .
They saw Trump for 8 years, with all that that entails, and still thought he would make a better President than Kamala Harris.
I see the asylum seeking nonce has been recaptured.
As broadcast on the BBC
How dare they cover a story of public interest as it makes some uncomfortable !
I think the point is the other 250 criminals who were wrongly released got no attention whatsoever, while the BBC gives the single asylum seeker wall to wall coverage, where asylum seeking and criminality are somewhat conflated. The story has public interest; BBC coverage of it less so.
It's not just the BBC of course - it's the Mail, Sky News etc, etc. I'm not quite sure why so many on here single out the BBC for their vitriol - could be the Licence Fee perchance?
In any case, it was always going to be about who this man was and the context rather than anything else. The truth is this has been an appalling blunder which has uncovered a larger issue around the prison service and its competencies which in turn leads back to the neglect of past Conservative Governments as much as the ineptitude of the current Labour Government.
The BBC headline literally was "Wrongly released asylum seeker", not "Wrongly released criminal".
I agree there is genuinely a bigger problem of wrongly released criminals, which this is one example and therefore a valid story. The problem is when you - it seems deliberately - use it to make generations about asylum seekers when this was only one of of 250.
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
He will get deported ultimately as he got a jail sentence of at least 12 months, though seems rather ridiculous to impose a jail sentence if he won't serve it, he should just have been sentenced to be deported in the first place!
Was he not, on Friday, being sent to a deportation centre? Until someone messed up the arrangements.
I see the asylum seeking nonce has been recaptured.
As broadcast on the BBC
How dare they cover a story of public interest as it makes some uncomfortable !
I think the point is the other 250 criminals who were wrongly released got no attention whatsoever, while the BBC gives the single asylum seeker wall to wall coverage, where asylum seeking and criminality are somewhat conflated. The story has public interest; BBC coverage of it less so.
How many of the other 250 cases were as prominent as this one.
None I’d wager
The BBC’s coverage is fine.
Prominent isn't the same as important. What crimes had the other 250 been found guilty of? What risks did they pose to the public? How quickly were they caught, if at all?
We don't know, because we're not told. And we're not told because the news media can only function if they select what to tell us.
As with the adverts conversation yesterday, their business duty is to tell us what creates the best response, which needn't have much to do with what would best help us all understand the world around us.
As to the elections, I have no expertise to add beyond what is comprehensively covered above.
I've been following Argentina's economy closely and I think Milei, though incredibly brave and right in most respects, will ultimately be thwarted by the nationwide obsession with the dollar exchange rate as a mark of success, which he shares to some extent. Beyond the rarified realm of economic models, a classic sign of an overvalued exchange rate is when Argentinians go shopping en masse, in, or start to retire to, Brazil and Paraguay, and I understand we're seeing quite a lot of that now, But I could be wrong, especially if the dollar weakens significantly.
However, if Milei defies the massive odds against him and reignites a sustainable recovery, it would be yet another small nail in the coffin of our dismal government's illiterate tax and spend economic policy. Would people be saying, as they did with economic miracle West Germany after WWII, "I thought we won the war"?
Good luck to him.
Trying to fight exchange rates is an old, old thing.
Post WWII, the U.K. spent loan after loan from the US on trying to support the pound.
While growing up in the 80s, every tip pot dictator had fixed exchange rate, with a collapsed economy and a lively black market.
Then there was the ERM comedy.
I never understood it. The pressure is there. The cost of holding an artificial exchange rate is large. So you run out of funds and then the movement happens anyway.
Yours right, of course.
But allowing depreciations are effectively telling the entire country that they are poorer than they thought they were. People don't like unpleasant facts.
Which is why it's usually left to financial markets, or the IMF, to break the bad news.
The effect varies between socioeconmic demographics.
A lower exchange rate works very well for the middle aged who work in export industries and have DC pensions.
Of course, and the very wealthy can usually find ways of insulating themselves from the effects, or even benefit with the right strategy.
But economic miracles are often built on making the majority of the populace work harder for less, via the mechanism of a low exchange rate. (See, for example, S Korea or China)
The succeeding generation benefits; those around at the time, not so much.
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
National and regional party list systems are worse than D'hondt.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
Not hers. She didn’t have enough time. Her message was great, it wasn’t the problem. Neither was she.
Regardless any sane country given the choice between Harris and Trump would have elected her. The fact voters decided to go with Trump is more a reflection of them than Harris who ran a perfectly acceptable campaign .
Your "any sane country" theory doesn't really survive contact with reality. It's fairly common for countries to vote for a candidate who a more objective outside observer might judge a poor choice.
That's particularly true where they are angry over particular issues and want a candidate promising change on those issues. That is, the objective observer kind of by definition doesn't share their anger and is more inclined to consider whether the "solution" being offered is real or snake oil.
To be fair the Democratic brand has been radioactive in rural America well before last year, even Obama lost rural America. The Democrats haven't won rural Americans votes since 1996 when Bill Clinton ran for re election and even then Clinton only beat Dole by 1% in rural areas and small towns with Perot getting 10% of the vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
That's far from inevitable. There are Democrats who run and run in rural constituencies - see for example Elissa Slotkin back when she was in the House of Representatives.
Trump is doing his bit to toxify the GOP brand now, of course.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland. The power rests with the PM, as it does in the UK. A non-political head of state with no political ambition is a small check of the power of the PM, as in the UK. The question is - how do you ensure that an elected head of state is non political? Ireland manages. I suppose you ensure that the job description contains no day to day real power. Are there any other good examples as well as Ireland?
I see the asylum seeking nonce has been recaptured.
As broadcast on the BBC
How dare they cover a story of public interest as it makes some uncomfortable !
I think the point is the other 250 criminals who were wrongly released got no attention whatsoever, while the BBC gives the single asylum seeker wall to wall coverage, where asylum seeking and criminality are somewhat conflated. The story has public interest; BBC coverage of it less so.
How many of the other 250 cases were as prominent as this one.
None I’d wager
The BBC’s coverage is fine.
Prominent isn't the same as important. What crimes had the other 250 been found guilty of? What risks did they pose to the public? How quickly were they caught, if at all?
We don't know, because we're not told. And we're not told because the news media can only function if they select what to tell us.
As with the adverts conversation yesterday, their business duty is to tell us what creates the best response, which needn't have much to do with what would best help us all understand the world around us.
If 250 were released 'improperly' does that mean that 250 other are still incarcerated in Chelmsford Prison, having been led to expect release?
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
Both can be correct, can't they? I thought it was fairly common for people to be sent to serve the remainder of their sentence in a prison in their country of origin (by agreement with that country).
Yes but I think H was postulating he'd go back to his jail here to serve the rest of his time.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
He will get deported ultimately as he got a jail sentence of at least 12 months, though seems rather ridiculous to impose a jail sentence if he won't serve it, he should just have been sentenced to be deported in the first place!
He was to be transferred for deportation now - no idea where you get the idea he has more prison time to serve
Not hers. She didn’t have enough time. Her message was great, it wasn’t the problem. Neither was she.
Which is why her popularity got steadily worse as the campaign progressed. The more the American public saw of her, the more they preferred to vote for Donald Trump, that’s how bad she was.
You’re giving Trump voters an out to excuse their moronic decision . They saw Trump for 8 years and ignored the litany of disgusting and corrupt behaviour . It’s on them .
They saw Trump for 8 years, with all that that entails, and still thought he would make a better President than Kamala Harris.
Maybe they believed all the gullible righties (well represented on here) that said Trump wouldn't be so bad. Those were the same nitwits telling people that Trump would pivot at the start of his first term. No such pivot was forthcoming.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
I think it's possible to accept that this guy isn't the Yorkshire Ripper, and also that he isn't in prison for lewd jokes but rather for sexual assault of a schoolgirl.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
As to the elections, I have no expertise to add beyond what is comprehensively covered above.
I've been following Argentina's economy closely and I think Milei, though incredibly brave and right in most respects, will ultimately be thwarted by the nationwide obsession with the dollar exchange rate as a mark of success, which he shares to some extent. Beyond the rarified realm of economic models, a classic sign of an overvalued exchange rate is when Argentinians go shopping en masse, in, or start to retire to, Brazil and Paraguay, and I understand we're seeing quite a lot of that now, But I could be wrong, especially if the dollar weakens significantly.
However, if Milei defies the massive odds against him and reignites a sustainable recovery, it would be yet another small nail in the coffin of our dismal government's illiterate tax and spend economic policy. Would people be saying, as they did with economic miracle West Germany after WWII, "I thought we won the war"?
Good luck to him.
Trying to fight exchange rates is an old, old thing.
Post WWII, the U.K. spent loan after loan from the US on trying to support the pound.
While growing up in the 80s, every tip pot dictator had fixed exchange rate, with a collapsed economy and a lively black market.
Then there was the ERM comedy.
I never understood it. The pressure is there. The cost of holding an artificial exchange rate is large. So you run out of funds and then the movement happens anyway.
Yours right, of course.
But allowing depreciations are effectively telling the entire country that they are poorer than they thought they were. People don't like unpleasant facts.
Which is why it's usually left to financial markets, or the IMF, to break the bad news.
The effect varies between socioeconmic demographics.
A lower exchange rate works very well for the middle aged who work in export industries and have DC pensions.
Of course, and the very wealthy can usually find ways of insulating themselves from the effects, or even benefit with the right strategy.
But economic miracles are often built on making the majority of the populace work harder for less, via the mechanism of a low exchange rate. (See, for example, S Korea or China)
The succeeding generation benefits; those around at the time, not so much.
For a couple of years now I have been expecting a major drop in the pound which has yet to happen. It appears that the whole focus of the Treasury is to keep the pound up in the short term even if it has massive long term detrimental effects. At some point the dam will burst. Wondering what will be the trigger. This years budget. Next years elections. An external trigger. A sterling crisis will be the only way to massively cut welfare costs and maybe start to get the economy moving under Labour.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
I see the asylum seeking nonce has been recaptured.
As broadcast on the BBC
How dare they cover a story of public interest as it makes some uncomfortable !
I think the point is the other 250 criminals who were wrongly released got no attention whatsoever, while the BBC gives the single asylum seeker wall to wall coverage, where asylum seeking and criminality are somewhat conflated. The story has public interest; BBC coverage of it less so.
How many of the other 250 cases were as prominent as this one.
None I’d wager
The BBC’s coverage is fine.
Prominent isn't the same as important. What crimes had the other 250 been found guilty of? What risks did they pose to the public? How quickly were they caught, if at all?
We don't know, because we're not told. And we're not told because the news media can only function if they select what to tell us.
As with the adverts conversation yesterday, their business duty is to tell us what creates the best response, which needn't have much to do with what would best help us all understand the world around us.
If people are so motivated they can always obtain the information themselves.
There’s nothing wrong with the BBC’s reporting of this, people are not happy with the coverage simply due to the subject matter. Same as people who whine if Nigel Farage gets to appear on TV.
To be fair the Democratic brand has been radioactive in rural America well before last year, even Obama lost rural America. The Democrats haven't won rural Americans votes since 1996 when Bill Clinton ran for re election and even then Clinton only beat Dole by 1% in rural areas and small towns with Perot getting 10% of the vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
That's far from inevitable. There are Democrats who run and run in rural constituencies - see for example Elissa Slotkin back when she was in the House of Representatives.
Trump is doing his bit to toxify the GOP brand now, of course.
A few Democrats can win there but if the Democrats are even winning most of rural America they have won such a landslide US wide they never needed it anyway. It is the suburbs and small cities and towns with populations from about 50,000-150,000 that are the swing areas in US elections.
Inner cities of the big cities almost always vote Democrat as they almost always vote for Labour or left of centre parties in the UK and rural areas almost always vote Republican as they almost always vote Conservative (or now often Reform) here
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair. Not that I'm excusing the silly b****r.
Anyone any idea how he'll get on in an Ethiopian prison? If he actually gets into one.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
He will get deported ultimately as he got a jail sentence of at least 12 months, though seems rather ridiculous to impose a jail sentence if he won't serve it, he should just have been sentenced to be deported in the first place!
He was to be transferred for deportation now - no idea where you get the idea he has more prison time to serve
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
He will get deported ultimately as he got a jail sentence of at least 12 months, though seems rather ridiculous to impose a jail sentence if he won't serve it, he should just have been sentenced to be deported in the first place!
He was to be transferred for deportation now - no idea where you get the idea he has more prison time to serve
He got a 12 month jail sentence just 2 months ago
And had been on remand for how long? (I don't know, but it's the obvious explanation for the difference.)
We should just pass a Bill of Attainder against Andrew Windsor.
Guilty without trial. No wonder you are a Republican.
Tbf, that's normal practice for Bills of Attainder. I don't think they ever put the Prince of Hanover/Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale or the Duke of Brunswick on trial, for example.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
"For the first time, the BSA survey asked the public to choose between keeping the monarchy or replacing it with an elected head of state. A majority (58%) favour retaining the monarchy, while nearly four in ten (38%) would prefer an elected head of state.
But the data shows sharp divides across age, politics and identity:
Generational divide: Almost six in ten (59%) of younger people aged 16–34 favour an elected head of state, whereas three-quarters (76%) of those aged 55+ support continuation of the monarchy."
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
He started making comments, sometimes critical of the centre right government's policies on housing and alleged inequality for example.
A head of state who is only head of state should be non political and never make party political comments, they are not head of government but supposed to be ceremonial and above politics. Hence constitutional monarchs are not only better than Presidents who are heads of government and heads of state like in the US but also just heads of state like in Ireland in my view
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
I think it's possible to accept that this guy isn't the Yorkshire Ripper, and also that he isn't in prison for lewd jokes but rather for sexual assault of a schoolgirl.
#BadFacts
Edit : good to see the subject is so funny. For some. If you have daughters who tell you about what they have to put up with and the places they have to avoid, less so.
Great to see a header on Argentina but im afraid I think Foxy's economics read might be a bit off. I'd say Milei isnt going to be able to stabilise the peso because it's overvalued.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair. Not that I'm excusing the silly b****r.
Anyone any idea how he'll get on in an Ethiopian prison? If he actually gets into one.
It may not have been 'the worst,' but it was pretty serious, not least given the age of two of the three people involved.
Kebatu attempted to kiss the [14 year old] girl and placed his hand on her thigh, before asking her to kiss another child as he watched, his trial heard.
He then groped another woman who had offered to help him with his paperwork.
Now I am assuming @Roger spoke out of ignorance, but his comment was not very impressive to put it mildly. Perhaps he would care to retract?
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
The Irish President seems like the right way to do it.
It’s an elected position so will likely attract people who have been politically active, but the role itself is mostly ceremonial and in practice acts similarly to that of a limited-term monarch.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
Ah, so he’s the victim.
Maybe a crowdfunder is needed. They gave him no money !!!!
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
"For the first time, the BSA survey asked the public to choose between keeping the monarchy or replacing it with an elected head of state. A majority (58%) favour retaining the monarchy, while nearly four in ten (38%) would prefer an elected head of state.
But the data shows sharp divides across age, politics and identity:
Generational divide: Almost six in ten (59%) of younger people aged 16–34 favour an elected head of state, whereas three-quarters (76%) of those aged 55+ support continuation of the monarchy."
Though even the BSA survey found a massive 82% of Conservative voters and 77% of Reform voters and a comfortable 57% of LD voters want to keep the monarchy, so few votes in going republican for Badenoch, Farage or Davey but lots to lose. Even voters still backing Labour prefer the monarchy over a republic by 1%, so too risky for Starmer to touch it either.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
The amgle that the media are missing about the released sex offender, is this isnt a one off. 5 people a week are mistakenly released.
Which is crazy, and should have the relevant minister up before Parliament every week explaining what went wrong in each case.
Wes Streeting was blaming the Tories for it.
LOL, how can losing five prisoners last week possibly be the fault of the previous government?
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
Ah, so he’s the victim.
Maybe a crowdfunder is needed. They gave him no money !!!!
IIRC the report was that he was given £76. Apart from anything else it's, I would think, very difficult to get onto Chelmsford station platform without paying. And yes, I've been there. Not without paying, I hasten to add!
The amgle that the media are missing about the released sex offender, is this isnt a one off. 5 people a week are mistakenly released.
Which is crazy, and should have the relevant minister up before Parliament every week explaining what went wrong in each case.
Wes Streeting was blaming the Tories for it.
LOL, how can losing five prisoners last week possibly be the fault of the previous government?
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
The Tory Government allowed prisons to get over full which means prisoners are being released early.
However that simply means make sure you paperwork is completed correctly and that just requires resources so a bit of time and money -
Comments
I'm also not sure how you equate national polling to a Senedd by-election result. There's an element of truth in that Reform look vulnerable to tactical voting and I'm sure as a Conservative that's a message you'll be putting over in seats where the Tories are the biggest challengers to Reform but what of seats where Reform's biggest challengers are Labour and the Conservatives are third or fourth? Would you encourage Conservative voters in those seats to vote Labour or would you prefer Reform to win large numbers of seats?
The sheikh has offered free use of a vast royal palace next to an idyllic waterway in the desert kingdom. He is said to have made the gesture to show his gratitude for Andrew’s “kindness” to United Arab Emirates royals when he was the UK’s international business envoy.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/37118388/andrew-offered-lavish-abu-dhabi-palace-royals
It is an excellent getaway for disgraced European royals, exiled former King of Spain Juan Carlos also lives there
https://english.elpais.com/spain/2021-08-03/the-life-of-spains-emeritus-king-juan-carlos-i-in-abu-dhabi.html
But allowing depreciations are effectively telling the entire country that they are poorer than they thought they were.
People don't like unpleasant facts.
Which is why it's usually left to financial markets, or the IMF, to break the bad news.
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example).
b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
I recall back in the Blair years an RAF bigwig left a CDRom with sensitive defence details on a bus. The press demanded Ministerial resignations. During the 2010 to 2024 government a briefcase with sensitive defence material was stolen from a parked car. The media wanted the car driver sacked.
Bottom line is that Harris is doing Kuenssberg more of a favour by appearing on the show than Kuenssberg is doing Harris by giving her a platform.
There's a reason why few chat show interviews are particularly probing.
In any case, it was always going to be about who this man was and the context rather than anything else. The truth is this has been an appalling blunder which has uncovered a larger issue around the prison service and its competencies which in turn leads back to the neglect of past Conservative Governments as much as the ineptitude of the current Labour Government.
(Btw I am sending you a VM.)
A lower exchange rate works very well for the middle aged who work in export industries and have DC pensions.
How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America | The Ezra Klein Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9bjypc1rS4
Guarantees what @malcolmg calls “donkeys”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
None I’d wager
The BBC’s coverage is fine. Some people just don’t like it because of the subject matter and who the offender is.
b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
Failed with Hillary. Biden was genuinely good at national level politics. Trying the same again with Harris was just stupid.
And, at time of typing, it is here, although, having looked at the Met Office forecast, I doubt it will last.
On topic, while I applaud the header, which seemed to be a reasonable assessment of the situation, I note that the map of constituencies includes a pair of islands low on the right hand side which do not appear to be represented in the Legislature.
At home I listened with growing disgust to the interview with Chris Philp. He can't help his voice of course, but he really sounded the sort of person who would have been at home with Judge Jeffreys.
I agree there is genuinely a bigger problem of wrongly released criminals, which this is one example and therefore a valid story. The problem is when you - it seems deliberately - use it to make generations about asylum seekers when this was only one of of 250.
On the list for my UnDictatorship are BoA for people with excessively expensive shoes, excessive modesty etc..
We don't know, because we're not told. And we're not told because the news media can only function if they select what to tell us.
As with the adverts conversation yesterday, their business duty is to tell us what creates the best response, which needn't have much to do with what would best help us all understand the world around us.
But economic miracles are often built on making the majority of the populace work harder for less, via the mechanism of a low exchange rate.
(See, for example, S Korea or China)
The succeeding generation benefits; those around at the time, not so much.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15227021/Ryan-Gosling-relocating-affluent-London-neighbourhood-wife-Eva-Mendes-two-daughters.html
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
That's particularly true where they are angry over particular issues and want a candidate promising change on those issues. That is, the objective observer kind of by definition doesn't share their anger and is more inclined to consider whether the "solution" being offered is real or snake oil.
There are Democrats who run and run in rural constituencies - see for example Elissa Slotkin back when she was in the House of Representatives.
Trump is doing his bit to toxify the GOP brand now, of course.
The power rests with the PM, as it does in the UK.
A non-political head of state with no political ambition is a small check of the power of the PM, as in the UK.
The question is - how do you ensure that an elected head of state is non political? Ireland manages.
I suppose you ensure that the job description contains no day to day real power.
Are there any other good examples as well as Ireland?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15228277/Mervyn-King-Rachel-Reeves-incoherent-mansion-tax.html
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tax-budget-income-rachel-reeves-chancellor-b2847002.html
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
For a couple of years now I have been expecting a major drop in the pound which has yet to happen. It appears that the whole focus of the Treasury is to keep the pound up in the short term even if it has massive long term detrimental effects. At some point the dam will burst. Wondering what will be the trigger. This years budget. Next years elections. An external trigger. A sterling crisis will be the only way to massively cut welfare costs and maybe start to get the economy moving under Labour.
There’s nothing wrong with the BBC’s reporting of this, people are not happy with the coverage simply due to the subject matter. Same as people who whine if Nigel Farage gets to appear on TV.
Inner cities of the big cities almost always vote Democrat as they almost always vote for Labour or left of centre parties in the UK and rural areas almost always vote Republican as they almost always vote Conservative (or now often Reform) here
What's not to love?
Anyone any idea how he'll get on in an Ethiopian prison? If he actually gets into one.
There are some votes.
"For the first time, the BSA survey asked the public to choose between keeping the monarchy or replacing it with an elected head of state. A majority (58%) favour retaining the monarchy, while nearly four in ten (38%) would prefer an elected head of state.
But the data shows sharp divides across age, politics and identity:
Generational divide: Almost six in ten (59%) of younger people aged 16–34 favour an elected head of state, whereas three-quarters (76%) of those aged 55+ support continuation of the monarchy."
A head of state who is only head of state should be non political and never make party political comments, they are not head of government but supposed to be ceremonial and above politics. Hence constitutional monarchs are not only better than Presidents who are heads of government and heads of state like in the US but also just heads of state like in Ireland in my view
Edit : good to see the subject is so funny. For some. If you have daughters who tell you about what they have to put up with and the places they have to avoid, less so.
I'd say Milei isnt going to be able to stabilise the peso because it's overvalued.
His efforts to get a surplus aren't going to fix that.
They need a flexible exchange rate and inflation targeting, like most other countries in Latin America.
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/americas-argentina-rescue-wont-save-peso-long?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Here is the summary of the offences (note plural) from the BBC report on his trial:
Kebatu attempted to kiss the [14 year old] girl and placed his hand on her thigh, before asking her to kiss another child as he watched, his trial heard.
He then groped another woman who had offered to help him with his paperwork.
Now I am assuming @Roger spoke out of ignorance, but his comment was not very impressive to put it mildly. Perhaps he would care to retract?
It’s an elected position so will likely attract people who have been politically active, but the role itself is mostly ceremonial and in practice acts similarly to that of a limited-term monarch.
Maybe a crowdfunder is needed. They gave him no money !!!!
So an act of despotism not even qualifying for that rubric.
(Indeed, the last such bill was introduced at the request of the monarch - the Pains and Penalties Bill 1820.)
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52737-royal-family-favourability-trackers-august-2025
Though even the BSA survey found a massive 82% of Conservative voters and 77% of Reform voters and a comfortable 57% of LD voters want to keep the monarchy, so few votes in going republican for Badenoch, Farage or Davey but lots to lose. Even voters still backing Labour prefer the monarchy over a republic by 1%, so too risky for Starmer to touch it either.
The only UK leader it makes sense for to be a republican is Polanski as 70% of Green voters want a republic and an elected head of state but Polanski is openly republican anyway
https://natcen.ac.uk/news/public-support-monarchy-falls-historic-low-while-calls-abolition-start-rise
Hosted by Michael Palin and called The Pilate Project.
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
And yes, I've been there. Not without paying, I hasten to add!
However that simply means make sure you paperwork is completed correctly and that just requires resources so a bit of time and money -