Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
It's interesting what you say about Anglican bishops with only a hazy understanding of Christianity. To such as the above we can add churchmen who are also global warming activists, who think sea levels are going to rise disastrously even though God promised after the flood never to inundate the world again.
Either God's a lawyer ("Aaaaaaaaaaaah, technically sea levels rising 20 feet are not "inundation" in the generally understood sense of the word, so we can have global warming and twenty-foot sea level rises but these do not constitute a repeat flood in the terms indicated to Noah, twenty guineas"); or these people don't believe what's in their Bible. If the latter, that's fine, but they've then no business pronouncing atheist opinions from a pulpit, in order to make those opinions sound more authoritative.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
Obesity saves the NHS an enormous anount of money over time. Life is like a box of chocolates for fat people - it doesn't last as long.
This just isn't true. Healthier people not only live longer, they have fewer years of disability at the end of their lives and thus need less NHS treatment.
No it is absolutely true. Healthier people are still alive. And costing, at least something. Those with a BMI of a gazillion don't get that far and cost us annually precisely zero in old age - because they're long dead. Plus all the non-NHS welfare costs such as pension. Tim Worstall at the Adam Simth Institute blog did a series of excellent posts / graphs on this. Yes it's a bit heartless and I guess we should try to help people stop being 'disgusting fatbellies' (Private Pile quip) for their own quality of life issues. But the settled cold hard economic facts of gross obesity are that the state saves lots. Sue me if you don't like it. But hey I'm an evil kipper now right?
Of course, in the extra years that a healthy person has than an unhealthy person, they are costing the state more money. My point is that this is a SMALLER amount than the increased cost of an unhealthy person over a healthy person in the time period they are both alive. Healthy people, despite longer lives, have fewer years of morbodity, which is what really hemorrhages cost in a healthcare system.
And, of course, healthy people take less time off work, and are more likely to work past retirement age.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
So taking sides on behalf of all religions against the irreligious, rather than just Anglicans against the rest?
Has he asked these other faiths what they think about the idea, or is it more a unilateral decision ?
I'm not an Anglican, but an Anglican Coronation Service is part of our tradition and history, and we should stick to it.
'This is an English coronation for English people.'
What would the Church of Scotland know?
Prince Charles 'needs two coronations after Scottish independence' The Prince of Wales and his successors to the throne would need two coronations if Alex Salmond wins the Scottish independence referendum, according to a Church of Scotland report published today.
We are indeed moving towards a Union of the Crowns (1603-1707) scenario, it's inevitable and it might as well happen now to save about 20 years of hassle - a union in which essentially the only thing uniting England and Scotland is a shared monarch.
A thoroughly disgusting speech from Cameron today. Almost as vile as the stuff we hear from UKIP - actually, forget "almost". Equally as vile is more the case. I feel ashamed that I ever voted Conservative. This certainly isn't what I expected when I cast my vote in 2005.
Thank goodness for the Green Party. The only hope this country now has.
'This is an English coronation for English people.'
What would the Church of Scotland know?
Prince Charles 'needs two coronations after Scottish independence' The Prince of Wales and his successors to the throne would need two coronations if Alex Salmond wins the Scottish independence referendum, according to a Church of Scotland report published today.
That article deals in part with the separateness of the Scottish crown from the English one - which were united in 1603 and is nothing to do with indyref, which is concerned with the 1707 episode. But it confuses that with the issue of whether the Kirk should be involved. And as the report is written by the Kirk you can guess one reason why the report is in favour.
I haven't bothered to look up the report as it all seems rather pointless - the Kirk (or more precisely the official pro-Establishment mainstream bit of the cluster of variously split and merged Presbyterian sibling and cousin kirks) was disestablished a long time ago.
I have no problem with a few lines of the Quran being recited at Chas's coronation. If he wants them there to indicate his respect for his Moslem subjects that is fine by me. Or maybe he is just keeping his options open like those early Christian kings that hedged their bets by having a few pagan symbols included in their funeral rites. What if the ayatollahs have called it right and on the day of our demise we end up in front of Allah? He does not strike me as being that forgiving, so anything that you can do to keep him onside is probably a good idea.
Some posters on here have a vast capacity for outrage. I admire it in a way.
Why doesn't he go to a mosque then and have some sort of service there if he wants to show respect. And he can turn up in a synagogue and a Hindu temple and Westminster Cathedral etc etc.
But he should understand where his kingship comes from. It's not some toy for him to play around with according to his own rather incoherent ramblings.
His kingship comes from God. That's why we have a coronation. Thus, Charles is not answerable to anyone but God and so Charles can basically do what he likes. As I understand it, the actual anointment will be done in the same way it has always been.
There've been lots of English kings who thought they could do what they liked. They came a cropper, usually. One lost his head.
My guess is that Chas will not be executed. His kingship comes from God. That's why we have the coronation - it is all about his anointing. That will not change. On the other hand, the ceremony surrounding that solemn moment has been a moveable feast. The last one followed a programme that was only set down at the start of the 20th century for Edward VIII's coronation.
"The plunge in crude prices after OPEC’s decision to keep its production ceiling unchanged is “terrible,” according to Iraq’s oil minister.
Brent crude, the global benchmark, fell the most in more than three years after the 12-member group completed talks and traded at $72.50 a barrel in London today. That’s 29 percent less than the $102.20 Iraq needs to balance its budget, according to International Monetary Fund estimates."
A thoroughly disgusting speech from Cameron today. Almost as vile as the stuff we hear from UKIP - actually, forget "almost". Equally as vile is more the case. I feel ashamed that I ever voted Conservative. This certainly isn't what I expected when I cast my vote in 2005.
Thank goodness for the Green Party. The only hope this country now has.
What do you find "disgusting?"
He is in favour of the country going bankrupt... should be right at home in the Green Party
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford. (What is it about Oxbridge graduates? They seem to be utter morons, most of them.)
(Anyway since I now seem to be channelling my inner "SeanT", I really had better be off.)
BTW Mr Llama - there was a lot of smashing up of religious art in your demerger. Arguably it destroyed the English visual imagination; one reason - maybe - why English art, with some few exceptions, is not where English creative genius is to be found.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
Obesity saves the NHS an enormous anount of money over time. Life is like a box of chocolates for fat people - it doesn't last as long.
This just isn't true. Healthier people not only live longer, they have fewer years of disability at the end of their lives and thus need less NHS treatment.
No it is absolutely true. Healthier people are still alive. And costing, at least something. Those with a BMI of a gazillion don't get that far and cost us annually precisely zero in old age - because they're long dead. Plus all the non-NHS welfare costs such as pension. Tim Worstall at the Adam Simth Institute blog did a series of excellent posts / graphs on this. Yes it's a bit heartless and I guess we should try to help people stop being 'disgusting fatbellies' (Private Pile quip) for their own quality of life issues. But the settled cold hard economic facts of gross obesity are that the state saves lots. Sue me if you don't like it. But hey I'm an evil kipper now right?
Of course, in the extra years that a healthy person has than an unhealthy person, they are costing the state more money. My point is that this is a SMALLER amount than the increased cost of an unhealthy person over a healthy person in the time period they are both alive. Healthy people, despite longer lives, have fewer years of morbodity, which is what really hemorrhages cost in a healthcare system.
And, of course, healthy people take less time off work, and are more likely to work past retirement age.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
I'm just on my way home from a couple of days working in Lyon, very little sign of obesity (by UK standards) in France that I have seen.
A thoroughly disgusting speech from Cameron today. Almost as vile as the stuff we hear from UKIP - actually, forget "almost". Equally as vile is more the case. I feel ashamed that I ever voted Conservative. This certainly isn't what I expected when I cast my vote in 2005. Thank goodness for the Green Party. The only hope this country now has.
Glad you left and note you now vote for the Green party with policies that would take us back to a pre-industrial level economy. Anyone for serfdom?
A thoroughly disgusting speech from Cameron today. Almost as vile as the stuff we hear from UKIP - actually, forget "almost". Equally as vile is more the case. I feel ashamed that I ever voted Conservative. This certainly isn't what I expected when I cast my vote in 2005.
Thank goodness for the Green Party. The only hope this country now has.
Isn't the Green Party opposed to population growth in the UK ?
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford. (What is it about Oxbridge graduates? They seem to be utter morons, most of them.)
(Anyway since I now seem to be channelling my inner "SeanT", I really had better be off.)
BTW Mr Llama - there was a lot of smashing up of religious art in your demerger. Arguably it destroyed the English visual imagination; one reason - maybe - why English art, with some few exceptions, is not where English creative genius is to be found.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
Obesity saves the NHS an enormous anount of money over time. Life is like a box of chocolates for fat people - it doesn't last as long.
This just isn't true. Healthier people not only live longer, they have fewer years of disability at the end of their lives and thus need less NHS treatment.
No it is absolutely true. Healthier people are still alive. And costing, at least something. Those with a BMI of a gazillion don't get that far and cost us annually precisely zero in old age - because they're long dead. Plus all the non-NHS welfare costs such as pension. Tim Worstall at the Adam Simth Institute blog did a series of excellent posts / graphs on this. Yes it's a bit heartless and I guess we should try to help people stop being 'disgusting fatbellies' (Private Pile quip) for their own quality of life issues. But the settled cold hard economic facts of gross obesity are that the state saves lots. Sue me if you don't like it. But hey I'm an evil kipper now right?
Of course, in the extra years that a healthy person has than an unhealthy person, they are costing the state more money. My point is that this is a SMALLER amount than the increased cost of an unhealthy person over a healthy person in the time period they are both alive. Healthy people, despite longer lives, have fewer years of morbodity, which is what really hemorrhages cost in a healthcare system.
And, of course, healthy people take less time off work, and are more likely to work past retirement age.
No it doesn't, the BMJ study, unsurprisingly, only considers medical cost, it doesn't look at total lifetime costs and benefits like taxes paid or benefits or pensions claimed.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
Obesity saves the NHS an enormous anount of money over time. Life is like a box of chocolates for fat people - it doesn't last as long.
I believe the same argument is often advanced in favour of smoking. Smokers pay a lot of tax to support their habit, and then die early and save the country a lot of pension payments.
That's because it's true. Fuck nannyism. Let people gorge themselves, as free men, with whatever shite they like. And if the taxman sees they are addicted he can tax the shite as a steady earner. This 'everyone must eat goji berries' attitude is deeply, deeply illiberal.
What's a Goji berry ?
Small red berries cultivated exclusively for the gullible. Same market as for edible polystyrene discs rice cakes.
The nutritional content is inferior to that of a plain old European redcurrant, IIRC. But because they're foreign, hippies, lefties, and other tossers all assume they must automatically be better than anything grown here.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
I'm just on my way home from a couple of days working in Lyon, very little sign of obesity (by UK standards) in France that I have seen.
Nor round here -- at least not in children: though some parents may have been selflessly donating their salads! I am sceptical about these scares -- either there are geographic differences not being reported or they are comparing to outdated norms from the 1950s or 60s.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford.
Cambridge.
What were you saying about historical illiterates?
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford. (What is it about Oxbridge graduates? They seem to be utter morons, most of them.)
(Anyway since I now seem to be channelling my inner "SeanT", I really had better be off.)
BTW Mr Llama - there was a lot of smashing up of religious art in your demerger. Arguably it destroyed the English visual imagination; one reason - maybe - why English art, with some few exceptions, is not where English creative genius is to be found.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
Only a half-wit?
Does he still discuss politics with his flowers. Or has he grown out of that.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
Obesity saves the NHS an enormous anount of money over time. Life is like a box of chocolates for fat people - it doesn't last as long.
This just isn't true. Healthier people not only live longer, they have fewer years of disability at the end of their lives and thus need less NHS treatment.
No it is absolutely true. Healthier people are still alive. And costing, at least something. Those with a BMI of a gazillion don't get that far and cost us annually precisely zero in old age - because they're long dead. Plus all the non-NHS welfare costs such as pension. Tim Worstall at the Adam Simth Institute blog did a series of excellent posts / graphs on this. Yes it's a bit heartless and I guess we should try to help people stop being 'disgusting fatbellies' (Private Pile quip) for their own quality of life issues. But the settled cold hard economic facts of gross obesity are that the state saves lots. Sue me if you don't like it. But hey I'm an evil kipper now right?
Of course, in the extra years that a healthy person has than an unhealthy person, they are costing the state more money. My point is that this is a SMALLER amount than the increased cost of an unhealthy person over a healthy person in the time period they are both alive. Healthy people, despite longer lives, have fewer years of morbodity, which is what really hemorrhages cost in a healthcare system.
And, of course, healthy people take less time off work, and are more likely to work past retirement age.
No it doesn't, the BMJ study, unsurprisingly, only considers medical cost, it doesn't look at total lifetime costs and benefits like taxes paid or benefits or pensions claimed.
No shit. It's the BMJ! Bit like asking Unite to draft a paper on the value to society of trade union membership. You know the answer before you read a word.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford. (What is it about Oxbridge graduates? They seem to be utter morons, most of them.)
(Anyway since I now seem to be channelling my inner "SeanT", I really had better be off.)
BTW Mr Llama - there was a lot of smashing up of religious art in your demerger. Arguably it destroyed the English visual imagination; one reason - maybe - why English art, with some few exceptions, is not where English creative genius is to be found.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
He went to Cambridge, on A-Level grades that would have got nobody in but him. It's a family tradition. Prince Edward is also wibblingly thick, also got in to read History, found it too hard and changed to Arch and Anth, in which he was delighted to take a Desmond.
My guess is that Chas will not be executed. His kingship comes from God. That's why we have the coronation - it is all about his anointing. That will not change. On the other hand, the ceremony surrounding that solemn moment has been a moveable feast. The last one followed a programme that was only set down at the start of the 20th century for Edward VIII's coronation.
Not really.
Although it's tweaked from time to time, the service is largely based on Cranmer's work.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford. (What is it about Oxbridge graduates? They seem to be utter morons, most of them.)
(Anyway since I now seem to be channelling my inner "SeanT", I really had better be off.)
BTW Mr Llama - there was a lot of smashing up of religious art in your demerger. Arguably it destroyed the English visual imagination; one reason - maybe - why English art, with some few exceptions, is not where English creative genius is to be found.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
He went to Cambridge, on A-Level grades that would have got nobody in but him. It's a family tradition. Prince Edward is also wibblingly thick, also got in to read History, found it too hard and changed to Arch and Anth, in which he was delighted to take a Desmond.
A thoroughly disgusting speech from Cameron today. Almost as vile as the stuff we hear from UKIP - actually, forget "almost". Equally as vile is more the case. I feel ashamed that I ever voted Conservative. This certainly isn't what I expected when I cast my vote in 2005.
Thank goodness for the Green Party. The only hope this country now has.
Isn't the Green Party opposed to population growth in the UK ?
Their manifesto reads like a Labour one from the 1970's only with the requirement to stop population growth and reduce industrialisation, otherwise its all spend, spend, spend, no realistic indications are given about how they will pay for stuff. Also the way they propose to do things it should really be called the "export your emissions party".
The Green Party has a liberal migration policy and wants greater global justice and equality, so people who migrate can do so on the basis of choice, not economic hardship. Where migration patterns increase or decrease population levels it is essential that social, economic and environmental pressures are mitigated in such a way which fully respects the rights of migrants and existing local populations.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
Obesity saves the NHS an enormous anount of money over time. Life is like a box of chocolates for fat people - it doesn't last as long.
This just isn't true. Healthier people not only live longer, they have fewer years of disability at the end of their lives and thus need less NHS treatment.
No it is absolutely true. Healthier people are still alive. And costing, at least something. Those with a BMI of a gazillion don't get that far and cost us annually precisely zero in old age - because they're long dead. Plus all the non-NHS welfare costs such as pension. Tim Worstall at the Adam Simth Institute blog did a series of excellent posts / graphs on this. Yes it's a bit heartless and I guess we should try to help people stop being 'disgusting fatbellies' (Private Pile quip) for their own quality of life issues. But the settled cold hard economic facts of gross obesity are that the state saves lots. Sue me if you don't like it. But hey I'm an evil kipper now right?
Of course, in the extra years that a healthy person has than an unhealthy person, they are costing the state more money. My point is that this is a SMALLER amount than the increased cost of an unhealthy person over a healthy person in the time period they are both alive. Healthy people, despite longer lives, have fewer years of morbodity, which is what really hemorrhages cost in a healthcare system.
And, of course, healthy people take less time off work, and are more likely to work past retirement age.
No it doesn't, the BMJ study, unsurprisingly, only considers medical cost, it doesn't look at total lifetime costs and benefits like taxes paid or benefits or pensions claimed.
Both the study I cited and the one mentioned in the Forbes article were only medical costs.
I have no problem with a few lines of the Quran being recited at Chas's coronation. If he wants them there to indicate his respect for his Moslem subjects that is fine by me. Or maybe he is just keeping his options open like those early Christian kings that hedged their bets by having a few pagan symbols included in their funeral rites. What if the ayatollahs have called it right and on the day of our demise we end up in front of Allah? He does not strike me as being that forgiving, so anything that you can do to keep him onside is probably a good idea.
Some posters on here have a vast capacity for outrage. I admire it in a way.
Why doesn't he go to a mosque then and have some sort of service there if he wants to show respect. And he can turn up in a synagogue and a Hindu temple and Westminster Cathedral etc etc.
But he should understand where his kingship comes from. It's not some toy for him to play around with according to his own rather incoherent ramblings.
Quite. At this rate, Charles will be a worse king than Joffrey Baratheon.
Charles could do to royalists what Cameron has done to the Conservative party.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford. (What is it about Oxbridge graduates? They seem to be utter morons, most of them.)
(Anyway since I now seem to be channelling my inner "SeanT", I really had better be off.)
BTW Mr Llama - there was a lot of smashing up of religious art in your demerger. Arguably it destroyed the English visual imagination; one reason - maybe - why English art, with some few exceptions, is not where English creative genius is to be found.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
The Secretary of State for Health is of course a believer in homeopathy.
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
I'm just on my way home from a couple of days working in Lyon, very little sign of obesity (by UK standards) in France that I have seen.
Brent Crude at $72 having recovered from early trade at ~$71.3
Alarming case of child care from NE Lincolnshire Council re an adoption row. Grandparents wanted to adopt a child when its mother died.
"Judge Simon Jack was deciding whether the boy should be placed for adoption or allowed to live with his grandparents.
He said North East Lincolnshire Council witnesses had been "visibly biased" and its case "severely undermined"......
He said it was accepted that the boy, known only as J, could not live with his father.
But he said the council had wanted him placed for adoption and had "effectively ruled out" both sets of grandparents.
"I have never, in over 10 years of hearing care cases, taken the view, as I did in this case, that the local authority's witnesses were visibly biased in their attempts to support the local authority's case," he said.
"It is very unfortunate and I hope I shall never see that again."
The judge concluded the boy should live with one set of grandparents.
He was critical of the evidence given by social workers Neil Swaby, Rachel Olley and Peter Nelson.
He said their concerns "appeared to be grossly overstated in order to try and achieve their ends".
"During the course of that evidence the local authority's case was severely undermined." 'Totally discredited'
He said Mr Swaby had been "very begrudging indeed in his evidence" and "was intent on saying only things which supported the local authority's case".
The judge said: "I then heard evidence from Rachel Olley, whose evidence was totally discredited in my view.
"Again I had the very strong impression that the local authority witnesses were intent on playing up any factors which were unfavourable to the grandparents and playing down any factors which might be favourable."
The judge said some of Mr Nelson's evidence "smacks to me of the same bias".
Having been to Tribunal over educational matters my experience was that the needs of the child did not figure as far as the education authority was concerned, and having spoken to others who underwent similar proceedings it seems we were far from being alone.
Swap "Scot" for "Green" in that article and it is almost the same scenario.
"The hyperbole around Greenland’s prospects of becoming a commodities exporting nation that would turn its citizens into millionaires has come and gone in cycles"
"As the 58,000 Greenlanders who inhabit an island three times the size of France wait for their commodities to be converted into cash, successive governments have failed to create an economy that can survive without outside support."
"A main task of the next administration will be to oversee an annual subsidy from Denmark of 3.6 billion kroner ($604 million) needed to keep the economy afloat."
"“Everybody agrees that something needs to be done to fix the economy but nobody seems to care about that before the election is over,” Pram Gad said. “For now lawmakers are preoccupied handing out handsome gifts” in the form of election pledges, he said."
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford. (What is it about Oxbridge graduates? They seem to be utter morons, most of them.)
(Anyway since I now seem to be channelling my inner "SeanT", I really had better be off.)
BTW Mr Llama - there was a lot of smashing up of religious art in your demerger. Arguably it destroyed the English visual imagination; one reason - maybe - why English art, with some few exceptions, is not where English creative genius is to be found.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
He went to Cambridge, on A-Level grades that would have got nobody in but him.
When he went up to Cambridge the grades he would have required would probably been 'two Es' (the minimum to qualify for LEA grant) - so his B & C was quite adequate. My Oxford offer a decade later was thus - Oxbridge at the time taking the view that they were better judges of talent via exam/interview than simple grades - and these were the days when an 'A' grade was awarded to 10% max - and frequently less. Unlike today.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
He went to Cambridge, on A-Level grades that would have got nobody in but him. It's a family tradition. Prince Edward is also wibblingly thick, also got in to read History, found it too hard and changed to Arch and Anth, in which he was delighted to take a Desmond.
My guess is that Chas will not be executed. His kingship comes from God. That's why we have the coronation - it is all about his anointing. That will not change. On the other hand, the ceremony surrounding that solemn moment has been a moveable feast. The last one followed a programme that was only set down at the start of the 20th century for Edward VIII's coronation.
Not really.
Although it's tweaked from time to time, the service is largely based on Cranmer's work.
St. Dunstan deliberately drew on significant elements of the old Jewish coronation services - to try and define the English monarchs as the Chosen.
The service, which is centred on the anointment, is not the same as the ceremony. The anointment predates Cranmer by many centuries. The ceremonial is the result of rules established for the I902 coronation.
My guess is that Chas will not be executed. His kingship comes from God. That's why we have the coronation - it is all about his anointing. That will not change. On the other hand, the ceremony surrounding that solemn moment has been a moveable feast. The last one followed a programme that was only set down at the start of the 20th century for Edward VIII's coronation.
Not really.
Although it's tweaked from time to time, the service is largely based on Cranmer's work.
St. Dunstan deliberately drew on significant elements of the old Jewish coronation services - to try and define the English monarchs as the Chosen.
Let's not forget that the Coronation will involve the then Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the key personnel will include the Duke of Hamilton as Premier Peer of Scotland, the Earl of Sutherland (assuming the Queen outlives the present Countess) as holder of the oldest Scottish earldom will carry the Orb and the Earl of Errol as Lord High Constable together with the Lord Lyon and other Scottish officers of State.
The former global counter-terrorism director of MI6 basically called bull$hit on the huffing and puffing from Cameron and Rifkind yesterday about getting Facebook to inform on terrorists.
The former global counter-terrorism director of MI6 has said it would be impractical and unfair to expect Facebook to monitor messages for terrorist intent and report them to the security services.
But he made clear that he was unconvinced by the value of such legislation, questioning what value it would have in light of the sheer amount of questionable material that would be referred.
He added that people who wanted to get around restrictions placed on their communications could probably do so quite easily by using encryption.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford.
Cambridge.
What were you saying about historical illiterates?
Interesting prospect of the expected winning party, which in the Danish Wikipedia sounds very much like Syriza (the English Wikipedia says they've gone moderate, but it's based on a single article).
The former global counter-terrorism director of MI6 basically called bull$hit on the huffing and puffing from Cameron and Rifkind yesterday about getting Facebook to inform on terrorists.
The former global counter-terrorism director of MI6 has said it would be impractical and unfair to expect Facebook to monitor messages for terrorist intent and report them to the security services.
But he made clear that he was unconvinced by the value of such legislation, questioning what value it would have in light of the sheer amount of questionable material that would be referred.
He added that people who wanted to get around restrictions placed on their communications could probably do so quite easily by using encryption.
Basically echoing Snowden then, won't find that needle if they keep on piling on the hay.
My guess is that Chas will not be executed. His kingship comes from God. That's why we have the coronation - it is all about his anointing. That will not change. On the other hand, the ceremony surrounding that solemn moment has been a moveable feast. The last one followed a programme that was only set down at the start of the 20th century for Edward VIII's coronation.
Not really.
Although it's tweaked from time to time, the service is largely based on Cranmer's work.
St. Dunstan deliberately drew on significant elements of the old Jewish coronation services - to try and define the English monarchs as the Chosen.
The service, which is centred on the anointment, is not the same as the ceremony. The anointment predates Cranmer by many centuries. The ceremonial is the result of rules established for the I902 coronation.
So why should the Koran have any role in the ceremonial side? Indeed why should religion play any part in the ceremonial side - having done its bit in the service?
Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 5m 5 minutes ago ... First piece of evidence: Juncker and EC reaction Cameron "shd be listened to with no drama"
Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 4m 4 minutes ago Second: Germans had even harsher restriction on eg learning German: benefits cut if you don't try to learn within 6 months
Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 2m 2 minutes ago Third: the EC/ individuals always taking member nations to the ECJ over this stuff so boundaries can be pushed
Cameron isn't making a big stand. He's doing the minute stuff that the EU will allow him to do. It's quite simple. A few months back his office leaked two options:
(1) The strong option: a points system
(2) The weak option: an emergency brake
Cameron's now doing for a weaker option than the weak option. He's feeble and weak.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
He went to Cambridge, on A-Level grades that would have got nobody in but him. It's a family tradition. Prince Edward is also wibblingly thick, also got in to read History, found it too hard and changed to Arch and Anth, in which he was delighted to take a Desmond.
In what sense are they doss options? It was interesting when I got to A Level that you suddenly realised that other teachers didn't really respect Geography as a 'hard' subject. That said from what I could see it certainly required a fair bit of work. Biology certainly does, one reason I preferred Physics and Chemistry. If you can understand them well enough there's less work than Biology. History of Art I don't know about.
The former global counter-terrorism director of MI6 basically called bull$hit on the huffing and puffing from Cameron and Rifkind yesterday about getting Facebook to inform on terrorists.
The former global counter-terrorism director of MI6 has said it would be impractical and unfair to expect Facebook to monitor messages for terrorist intent and report them to the security services.
But he made clear that he was unconvinced by the value of such legislation, questioning what value it would have in light of the sheer amount of questionable material that would be referred.
He added that people who wanted to get around restrictions placed on their communications could probably do so quite easily by using encryption.
Basically echoing Snowden then, won't find that needle if they keep on piling on the hay.
The real story is that the killer of Lee Rigby was well known to the intelligence services, and may even have worked for them at one time. You don't need facebook metadata for that. Just basic competence. This furore about facebook is just self-serving obfuscation. We saw exactly the same thing with the crackdown on BBM messaging after the London riots, when the real issue was the failure of the police to intervene rather than watching London burn. Covering up failures by demanding more powers -it's a chapter from the EU book of bureaucratic accountability.
... It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
.....
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
You'll be saying he got there on merit alone next.
Er, no. Quite the opposite. He seems to be someone who has an exxaggerated idea of his own abilities and thoughts. Anyone who believes in homeopathy is a half-wit, in my book.
As toe curlingly crass a remark as we get around here. So thick he flies air sea recue helecopters. How many hours have you got?
Doubly pathetic when if someone does a PPE he gets slated. Only brain surgeons are worthy of comment are they, 'Ms Thornberry'? Why is a geography degree 'doss', 'Mr Ratner'?. It so happens my brother did a geography degree and was very bright and active and well regarded in a whole range of sporting and intellectual activities and published several books.
Whats is 'doss' is going to a posh private school and then ducking out to become a barrow boy commodity trader who slags off women in the city and then uses racist dog whistles and sucks up to neo nazis to keep himself in gravy, all the while pretending to be a man of the people.
He went to Cambridge, on A-Level grades that would have got nobody in but him.
When he went up to Cambridge the grades he would have required would probably been 'two Es' (the minimum to qualify for LEA grant) - so his B & C was quite adequate. My Oxford offer a decade later was thus - Oxbridge at the time taking the view that they were better judges of talent via exam/interview than simple grades - and these were the days when an 'A' grade was awarded to 10% max - and frequently less. Unlike today.
He was a year behind me. At that time, you got into Cambridge either via
1) 4th term interview and conditional offer; or 2) 4th term CCE (Cambridge Colleges Examination) and conditional offer; or 3) 7th term CCE and outright offer.
1) was conceived primarily for applicants from the state sectors whose schools were simply not set up to support teaching the CCE alongside A Levels. If you applied from a grammar or an independent, however, you were expected to attempt the CCE, whether in the 4th or 7th term.
Typically, you would be offered outright if in the 7th term (because they had your CCE and your A Levels results in hand to look at), or conditionally in the 4th term. In the latter instance, the better you had done in the CCE, the greater the prospect of an easier offer.
I never heard of anyone offered two Es to get into Cambridge. Perhaps it happened, but it must have been rare. 2 As and a B was the usual offer I heard about, with 3 As being the average entrant's actual attainment. There was much Kremlinology and rune reading over the significance or otherwise of your conditional offer but largely it reflected demand for the course.
Eddie, very unusually for a private school applicant, did not sit the CCE. So if he really were offered two Es, it must have been because he blew them away in the interview. The unlikeliness was what pissed people off.
What pissed off his fellow college undergraduates especially was that he occupied five of the best college rooms for all three years. As well as his own and as well as not living out, the rooms on either side and above and below were occupied by his bodyguards.
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Mr Dancer, surely you'd never accuse me of lighting the blue touch paper and then walking away *fucking pleb* **innocent face**
It was an actual proposal I heard on r4 on the way to work this morning.
Yes - by some daft Bishop who, like all too many Anglican bishops, seems to have only the haziest understanding of Christianity or indeed the religious aspect of the coronation ceremony.
(Monarchs don't represent us; they represent the state. We elect politicians to represent us.)
Anyway, that's enough teasing of you all.
Off to do some work.
A multi- or no-faith coronation is an awful idea, worthy of New Labour at its worst.
Either do the Coronation properly (which means an Anglican service) or not at all.
It would have been like having a civil ceremony for Prince William's and Kate Middleton's wedding.
Isn't it Charles' idea?
He said a while back he wanted to Defender of Faith, rather than just merely the Defender of the Faith.
Which just shows what a historical illiterate Charles is. Despite having studied it at Oxford.
Cambridge.
What were you saying about historical illiterates?
Joss Ackland in the music video to The Pet Shop Boys' version of "Always On My Mind": "I am a bilingual illiterate. I can't read in two languages!"
I have no problem with a few lines of the Quran being recited at Chas's coronation. If he wants them there to indicate his respect for his Moslem subjects that is fine by me. Or maybe he is just keeping his options open like those early Christian kings that hedged their bets by having a few pagan symbols included in their funeral rites. What if the ayatollahs have called it right and on the day of our demise we end up in front of Allah? He does not strike me as being that forgiving, so anything that you can do to keep him onside is probably a good idea.
Some posters on here have a vast capacity for outrage. I admire it in a way.
Why doesn't he go to a mosque then and have some sort of service there if he wants to show respect. And he can turn up in a synagogue and a Hindu temple and Westminster Cathedral etc etc.
But he should understand where his kingship comes from. It's not some toy for him to play around with according to his own rather incoherent ramblings.
His kingship comes from God. That's why we have a coronation. Thus, Charles is not answerable to anyone but God and so Charles can basically do what he likes. As I understand it, the actual anointment will be done in the same way it has always been.
There've been lots of English kings who thought they could do what they liked. They came a cropper, usually. One lost his head.
Lots? Really? I should have thought that since about the 12th century there have been very few English Monarchs who thought they could do as they liked and govern without the consent of the people. Only three names spring to mind - Edward II, Richard II and Charles I all of whom came to sticky ends. I suppose, at a stretch, you could add the usurper Henry IV to the list and personal prejudice would see Bloody Mary included. So hardly lots, who else did you have in mind?
There is no track record yet for Lord Ashcroft's constituency polls so i would't be so optimistic about the Lib Dems abilities to hold on on Lib/Con marginals.The record of 2010 GE was that UNS predicted actually the nett losses for Lib dems and the Ashcroft polls show all the marginals would be lost on standard voting
Within the figures in yesterdays polls are very high UKIP figures.If as expected (baring more defections to UKIP and by elections) these numbers fall off towards the GE then the major beneficiary would be the Cons.
Comments
Either God's a lawyer ("Aaaaaaaaaaaah, technically sea levels rising 20 feet are not "inundation" in the generally understood sense of the word, so we can have global warming and twenty-foot sea level rises but these do not constitute a repeat flood in the terms indicated to Noah, twenty guineas"); or these people don't believe what's in their Bible. If the latter, that's fine, but they've then no business pronouncing atheist opinions from a pulpit, in order to make those opinions sound more authoritative.
I haven't bothered to look up the report as it all seems rather pointless - the Kirk (or more precisely the official pro-Establishment mainstream bit of the cluster of variously split and merged Presbyterian sibling and cousin kirks) was disestablished a long time ago.
Brent crude, the global benchmark, fell the most in more than three years after the 12-member group completed talks and traded at $72.50 a barrel in London today. That’s 29 percent less than the $102.20 Iraq needs to balance its budget, according to International Monetary Fund estimates."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-28/oil-price-drop-after-opec-decision-is-terrible-iraq-minister.html
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/3/e000940.full
Today's Populus had Lab 32 SNP 30 Con 19 LD 13 UKIP 3 Green 3
I'm just on my way home from a couple of days working in Lyon, very little sign of obesity (by UK standards) in France that I have seen.
What were you saying about historical illiterates?
Does he still discuss politics with his flowers. Or has he grown out of that.
I was among those who objected to his arrival.
http://www.curls.org.uk/retarded-eddie/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-28/greenlanders-vote-as-oil-price-slump-kills-independence-dreams.html
Although it's tweaked from time to time, the service is largely based on Cranmer's work.
And Cranmer basically just copied St. Dunstan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunstan
St. Dunstan deliberately drew on significant elements of the old Jewish coronation services - to try and define the English monarchs as the Chosen.
I mean, how ridiculous is that?
Con 448 UKIP 337 Lab 199
"The hyperbole around Greenland’s prospects of becoming a commodities exporting nation that would turn its citizens into millionaires has come and gone in cycles"
"As the 58,000 Greenlanders who inhabit an island three times the size of France wait for their commodities to be converted into cash, successive governments have failed to create an economy that can survive without outside support."
"A main task of the next administration will be to oversee an annual subsidy from Denmark of 3.6 billion kroner ($604 million) needed to keep the economy afloat."
"“Everybody agrees that something needs to be done to fix the economy but nobody seems to care about that before the election is over,” Pram Gad said. “For now lawmakers are preoccupied handing out handsome gifts” in the form of election pledges, he said."
http://www.populus.co.uk/item/Something-for-the-Weekend-35/
The main use of the Royal Family is that they prove how little effect private schooling has on thickoes. If you are invincibly dim there's really nothing Gordonstoun can do for you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531553/The-family-qualifications.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/26/lee-rigby-former-counter-terror-chief-criticism-facebook-unfair
Wow. I'd assumed there'd be a first degree among them somewhere (Beatrice got a 2.1 at Goldsmiths, Eugenie a 2.1 at Newcastle).
Pump prices should fall shortly enough.
Troup (Aberdeenshire) result: SNP - 46.1% (+6.4) CON - 22.8% (+1.9) IND - 15.5% (+15.5) LDEM - 5.6% (+3.6) LAB - 5.6% GRN - 2.7% IND - 1.7%
Twitter
Britain Elects @britainelects · now 1 minute ago
Kirkwall West & Orphir (Orkney): Independent GAIN from Independent
Britain Elects @britainelects · 3m 3 minutes ago
St Neots Priory Park (Huntingdonshire) result: CON - 45.5% (-2.9) UKIP - 34.2% (+7.4) LAB - 20.2% (+5.4)
http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/11/27/4257576_bahamas-fends-off-critics-over.html?rh=1
... First piece of evidence: Juncker and EC reaction Cameron "shd be listened to with no drama"
Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 4m 4 minutes ago
Second: Germans had even harsher restriction on eg learning German: benefits cut if you don't try to learn within 6 months
Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 2m 2 minutes ago
Third: the EC/ individuals always taking member nations to the ECJ over this stuff so boundaries can be pushed
Cameron isn't making a big stand. He's doing the minute stuff that the EU will allow him to do. It's quite simple. A few months back his office leaked two options:
(1) The strong option: a points system
(2) The weak option: an emergency brake
Cameron's now doing for a weaker option than the weak option. He's feeble and weak.
Doubly pathetic when if someone does a PPE he gets slated. Only brain surgeons are worthy of comment are they, 'Ms Thornberry'?
Why is a geography degree 'doss', 'Mr Ratner'?.
It so happens my brother did a geography degree and was very bright and active and well regarded in a whole range of sporting and intellectual activities and published several books.
Whats is 'doss' is going to a posh private school and then ducking out to become a barrow boy commodity trader who slags off women in the city and then uses racist dog whistles and sucks up to neo nazis to keep himself in gravy, all the while pretending to be a man of the people.
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-nine-labours-of-cameron-analysis-of.html
LAB 354 CON 249 LD 21 EICILPM
1) 4th term interview and conditional offer; or
2) 4th term CCE (Cambridge Colleges Examination) and conditional offer; or
3) 7th term CCE and outright offer.
1) was conceived primarily for applicants from the state sectors whose schools were simply not set up to support teaching the CCE alongside A Levels. If you applied from a grammar or an independent, however, you were expected to attempt the CCE, whether in the 4th or 7th term.
Typically, you would be offered outright if in the 7th term (because they had your CCE and your A Levels results in hand to look at), or conditionally in the 4th term. In the latter instance, the better you had done in the CCE, the greater the prospect of an easier offer.
I never heard of anyone offered two Es to get into Cambridge. Perhaps it happened, but it must have been rare. 2 As and a B was the usual offer I heard about, with 3 As being the average entrant's actual attainment. There was much Kremlinology and rune reading over the significance or otherwise of your conditional offer but largely it reflected demand for the course.
Eddie, very unusually for a private school applicant, did not sit the CCE. So if he really were offered two Es, it must have been because he blew them away in the interview. The unlikeliness was what pissed people off.
What pissed off his fellow college undergraduates especially was that he occupied five of the best college rooms for all three years. As well as his own and as well as not living out, the rooms on either side and above and below were occupied by his bodyguards.
"I am a bilingual illiterate. I can't read in two languages!"
Within the figures in yesterdays polls are very high UKIP figures.If as expected (baring more defections to UKIP and by elections) these numbers fall off towards the GE then the major beneficiary would be the Cons.