When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.
One of Pratchett's finest lines:
'They were called virginals. So called because they were meant for ----ing young women.'
'My word, were they?' asked one of the chairs. 'I thought they were just a kind of early piano.'
I loved the conversation from Making Money that began "Isn't the fornication here wonderful?"
There were times I laughed out loud, reading that book.
Going Postal and Making Money were both superb - a shame about Raising Steam, which could have been so good but was very much not.
Going Postal might well be his finest work.
That whole first chapter - a work of genius. RIP Sir Terry, we shall miss ye.
Isn't there to be a Good Omens TV show out soon? It will probably be terrible, I don't know how well much of his work does when not on paper.
Going Postal is brilliant but for me Mascarade was his pinnacle. I have read it so many times and I still find myself laughing uncontrollably.
Night Watch is my favourite I think, but I go back and forth on that.
When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.
One of Pratchett's finest lines:
'They were called virginals. So called because they were meant for ----ing young women.'
'My word, were they?' asked one of the chairs. 'I thought they were just a kind of early piano.'
I loved the conversation from Making Money that began "Isn't the fornication here wonderful?"
There were times I laughed out loud, reading that book.
Going Postal and Making Money were both superb - a shame about Raising Steam, which could have been so good but was very much not.
Going Postal might well be his finest work.
That whole first chapter - a work of genius. RIP Sir Terry, we shall miss ye.
Isn't there to be a Good Omens TV show out soon? It will probably be terrible, I don't know how well much of his work does when not on paper.
Going Postal is brilliant but for me Mascarade was his pinnacle. I have read it so many times and I still find myself laughing uncontrollably.
Night Watch is my favourite I think, but I go back and forth on that.
It is also extremely funny. The idea that a chance is only a chance if it is exactly one in a million. Witches Abroad is also good. I love Granny Weatherwax.
When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.
One of Pratchett's finest lines:
'They were called virginals. So called because they were meant for ----ing young women.'
'My word, were they?' asked one of the chairs. 'I thought they were just a kind of early piano.'
I loved the conversation from Making Money that began "Isn't the fornication here wonderful?"
There were times I laughed out loud, reading that book.
Going Postal and Making Money were both superb - a shame about Raising Steam, which could have been so good but was very much not.
Going Postal might well be his finest work.
That whole first chapter - a work of genius. RIP Sir Terry, we shall miss ye.
Isn't there to be a Good Omens TV show out soon? It will probably be terrible, I don't know how well much of his work does when not on paper.
Going Postal is brilliant but for me Mascarade was his pinnacle. I have read it so many times and I still find myself laughing uncontrollably.
Night Watch is my favourite I think, but I go back and forth on that.
Difficult to choose for me. I love everything. Although I still haven't read the very last one as I can't yet face it being the end.
My favourite individual quote from any Discworld book is
“In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.... Greebo went off like a claymore mine.”
Both Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy attended the wedding, so I’ve just made £330 off a £10 combined stake.
PaddyPower offering them each at 33/1 five months ago was utterly crazy.
What I'd like to know is what uniform Prince Harry was wearing. Apparently he had several options, but the only outfits I can see mentioned are the ladies' style choices.
William and Harry wore their regimental frock uniform of the Blues and Royals. William with the braid of an ADC to the Queen and Garter Star. Harry with the KCVO. The uniforms were probably tailored by Dege and Skinner.
Evening Jack.
Have you and Lady W had a nice time watching the Wedding?
Good evening GIN.
We recently converted an old basement kitchen annex to a cinema room (No ... not close to the dungeons ... ) but it lacked atmosphere for the event, ok for sporting events and the like. So with younger relatives and the children we moved to a south facing sitting room and sunny terrace.
A pleasant day was had .... especially when one of the little ones asked his mother if he could marry her "in that big hall with lots of trumpets, cake and lemonade." ....
If one were developing a country from scratch I would not choose a monarchy. But that is the point: we’re not starting from a blank sheet of paper. I can see no good reason to remove the monarchy from Britain. On the whole it works well. There are plenty of things wrong that need fixing which are way more important.
And I am instinctively wary of those groups who want to rip everything up and start again. In politics that has usually resulted in a lot of destruction and misery and very little constructive achievement to show for it.
Chesterton's Fence says, in short, that you should never let someone reform something (a rule, an institution) if he tells you that the thing doesn't serve any purpose. The philosopher G.K. Chesterton vividly illustrated his idea by asking us to imagine a fence strung up across a road, representing any kind of law or institution that we might find odd or inexplicable. There's a certain type of reformer, says Chesterton, who
...goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a claim that every rule or institution you encounter probably exists for a reason. It might be a bad reason, an outdated reason, or even an evil reason, but the fence didn't just appear out of nowhere. As Chesterton put it,
[The] fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.
The great playwrite Robert Bolt in A Man for All Seasons puts similar sentiments regarding the law. When Will Roper wants to see the law ignored
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.
One of Pratchett's finest lines:
'They were called virginals. So called because they were meant for ----ing young women.'
'My word, were they?' asked one of the chairs. 'I thought they were just a kind of early piano.'
I loved the conversation from Making Money that began "Isn't the fornication here wonderful?"
There were times I laughed out loud, reading that book.
Going Postal and Making Money were both superb - a shame about Raising Steam, which could have been so good but was very much not.
Going Postal might well be his finest work.
That whole first chapter - a work of genius. RIP Sir Terry, we shall miss ye.
Isn't there to be a Good Omens TV show out soon? It will probably be terrible, I don't know how well much of his work does when not on paper.
Going Postal is brilliant but for me Mascarade was his pinnacle. I have read it so many times and I still find myself laughing uncontrollably.
Night Watch is my favourite I think, but I go back and forth on that.
Difficult to choose for me. I love everything. Although I still haven't read the very last one as I can't yet face it being the end.
My favourite individual quote from any Discworld book is
“In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.... Greebo went off like a claymore mine.”
Greebo is yet another brilliant character. Only someone who truly loved cats could have written Greebo. I loved his comment that “In ancient Egypt cats were worshipped as gods. They have not forgotten this.”
Chesterton's Fence says, in short, that you should never let someone reform something (a rule, an institution) if he tells you that the thing doesn't serve any purpose. The philosopher G.K. Chesterton vividly illustrated his idea by asking us to imagine a fence strung up across a road, representing any kind of law or institution that we might find odd or inexplicable. There's a certain type of reformer, says Chesterton, who
...goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a claim that every rule or institution you encounter probably exists for a reason. It might be a bad reason, an outdated reason, or even an evil reason, but the fence didn't just appear out of nowhere. As Chesterton put it,
[The] fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.
The great playwrite Robert Bolt in A Man for All Seasons puts similar sentiments regarding the law. When Will Roper wants to see the law ignored
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Not just that scene but certainly that in part persuaded me to be a lawyer. Just a brilliant play.
United could still be playing now after Chelsea had left the field to collect the Cup and they wouldn’t have scored. Pogba really has to go. Herera too. And Mourinho. We are never going to win anything with such an overly cautious and defensive mindset.
That's exactly what it felt like - indeed throughout the season and the last few years.
Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.
Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.
'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?
In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.
I did not say that the US does not enjoy or do pomp, just that they don't really care about it. When did you last hear an American boast about the pomp of an inaugural, a nomination acceptance, a funeral or a wedding? To them, it is stage management towards a greater goal, not an end in itself.
When I first moved here, I received one of many cultural shocks. When talking about the UK's contribution to history, a good friend interrupted me and said "I don't care about what your country did, what is it doing now?" That is the mindset. Our pomp is mostly historical and nostalgic. It is what we did, not what we can do. It is us saying, look how great we once were. Which I find sad.
Cameron endorsed that sad mindset when he made that silly speech after the Russian insult at an international conference. What he failed to realise (not unusual for him) was that he was ENDORSING the notion that we no longer matter. I suppose the past provides consolation for those who have given up on the future but most people want more.
I fear this will be as popular as saying I like pineapple on my pizza whilst listening to Radiohead's Greatest Hits, but I never really *got* Pratchett. Yes, he could make some good one-liners, and he certainly had an excellent turn of phrase. But his writing never connected with me.
On the other hand, Douglas Adams' writing did. Both were undoubtedly brilliant writers, but one was for me, the other not. We have a friend who says the reverse, whilst Mrs J is a massive fan of both.
Having said that, I did go to a really good amateur play of Mort in Romsey ten or so years ago.
United could still be playing now after Chelsea had left the field to collect the Cup and they wouldn’t have scored. Pogba really has to go. Herera too. And Mourinho. We are never going to win anything with such an overly cautious and defensive mindset.
When Wenger announced he was going, I remember hearing a couple of football journos state that Wenger in the early days was miles ahead of the curve in all aspects of football from the coaching to the physios room. Arsenal was totally Wenger, the likes of Pat Rice are there to put the cones out. However, he is no longer thought of that way in the football world (albeit it is only whispered) and most opposition had a really good idea how to combat Arsenals attempts at the Wenger style of football.
The journos then went on to state that Mourinho is in the same boat. His tactics that won all those trophies for Chelsea are now seen as well known and strategies have been defined to combat them. Like Wenger, it is all Mourinho. His backroom team are there to implement exactly what he says.
In contrast, they stated Fergie, great manager via motivation and man management, but not a great coach or tactician. What he did instead, hired a number of different coaches over the years, bringing new ideas, new tactics etc, and leaned on a lot of what they said. As a result Man Utd managed to reinvent themselves every few years.
Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.
Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.
'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?
In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.
I did not say that the US does not enjoy or do pomp, just that they don't really care about it. When did you last hear an American boast about the pomp of an inaugural, a nomination acceptance, a funeral or a wedding? To them, it is stage management towards a greater goal, not an end in itself.
When I first moved here, I received one of many cultural shocks. When talking about the UK's contribution to history, a good friend interrupted me and said "I don't care about what your country did, what is it doing now?" That is the mindset. Our pomp is mostly historical and nostalgic. It is what we did, not what we can do. It is us saying, look how great we once were. Which I find sad.
Cameron endorsed that sad mindset when he made that silly speech after the Russian insult at an international conference. What he failed to realise (not unusual for him) was that he was ENDORSING the notion that we no longer matter. I suppose the past provides consolation for those who have given up on the future but most people want more.
We may not be a superpower anymore like the US, China and perhaps Russia but we are still at the top of the second tier along with France, Germany, Japan and India
Chesterton's Fence says, in short, that you should never let someone reform something (a rule, an institution) if he tells you that the thing doesn't serve any purpose. The philosopher G.K. Chesterton vividly illustrated his idea by asking us to imagine a fence strung up across a road, representing any kind of law or institution that we might find odd or inexplicable. There's a certain type of reformer, says Chesterton, who
...goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a claim that every rule or institution you encounter probably exists for a reason. It might be a bad reason, an outdated reason, or even an evil reason, but the fence didn't just appear out of nowhere. As Chesterton put it,
[The] fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.
The great playwrite Robert Bolt in A Man for All Seasons puts similar sentiments regarding the law. When Will Roper wants to see the law ignored
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Not just that scene but certainly that in part persuaded me to be a lawyer. Just a brilliant play.
Ironically, the real Sir Thomas More would have cut a road through the law to go after the Devil.
I fear this will be as popular as saying I like pineapple on my pizza whilst listening to Radiohead's Greatest Hits, but I never really *got* Pratchett. Yes, he could make some good one-liners, and he certainly had an excellent turn of phrase. But his writing never connected with me.
On the other hand, Douglas Adams' writing did. Both were undoubtedly brilliant writers, but one was for me, the other not. We have a friend who says the reverse, whilst Mrs J is a massive fan of both.
Having said that, I did go to a really good amateur play of Mort in Romsey ten or so years ago.
It certainly makes you less popular with me! In addition to consistent hilarity, Pratchett's work connected me with deep themes far more successfully than many authors for whom that is the primary intent, and far from just one liners his characterisation and plotting could be superb.
I fear this will be as popular as saying I like pineapple on my pizza whilst listening to Radiohead's Greatest Hits, but I never really *got* Pratchett. Yes, he could make some good one-liners, and he certainly had an excellent turn of phrase. But his writing never connected with me.
On the other hand, Douglas Adams' writing did. Both were undoubtedly brilliant writers, but one was for me, the other not. We have a friend who says the reverse, whilst Mrs J is a massive fan of both.
Having said that, I did go to a really good amateur play of Mort in Romsey ten or so years ago.
It certainly makes you less popular with me! In addition to consistent hilarity, Pratchett's work connected me with deep themes far more successfully than many authors for whom that is the primary intent, and far from just one liners his characterisation and plotting could be superb.
I see Theresa May, Vince Cable, Arlene Foster, even Nicola Sturgeon all managed to send tweets of congratulation to Harry and Meghan today.
Yet not one from Jeremy Corbyn
So what? That is something I really won't criticise Corbyn before - in any case no doubt his spinners should be taking care of such things for him.
So what? He is Leader of the Opposition and the potential next PM of this country. Whatever his private republican sympathies he could have at least given one tweet of congratulation to the newly weds which virtually every other political leader in the UK managed to do but him
Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.
Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.
'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?
In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.
I did not say that the US does not enjoy or do pomp, just that they don't really care about it. When did you last hear an American boast about the pomp of an inaugural, a nomination acceptance, a funeral or a wedding? To them, it is stage management towards a greater goal, not an end in itself.
When I first moved here, I received one of many cultural shocks. When talking about the UK's contribution to history, a good friend interrupted me and said "I don't care about what your country did, what is it doing now?" That is the mindset. Our pomp is mostly historical and nostalgic. It is what we did, not what we can do. It is us saying, look how great we once were. Which I find sad.
Cameron endorsed that sad mindset when he made that silly speech after the Russian insult at an international conference. What he failed to realise (not unusual for him) was that he was ENDORSING the notion that we no longer matter. I suppose the past provides consolation for those who have given up on the future but most people want more.
We may not be a superpower anymore like the US, China and perhaps Russia but we are still at the top of the second tier along with France, Germany, Japan and India
Chesterton's Fence says, in short, that you should never let someone reform something (a rule, an institution) if he tells you that the thing doesn't serve any purpose. The philosopher G.K. Chesterton vividly illustrated his idea by asking us to imagine a fence strung up across a road, representing any kind of law or institution that we might find odd or inexplicable. There's a certain type of reformer, says Chesterton, who
...goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a claim that every rule or institution you encounter probably exists for a reason. It might be a bad reason, an outdated reason, or even an evil reason, but the fence didn't just appear out of nowhere. As Chesterton put it,
[The] fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.
The great playwrite Robert Bolt in A Man for All Seasons puts similar sentiments regarding the law. When Will Roper wants to see the law ignored
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Not just that scene but certainly that in part persuaded me to be a lawyer. Just a brilliant play.
Ironically, the real Sir Thomas More would have cut a road through the law to go after the Devil.
But, it is a brilliant play.
The film is excellent too. Schofield's performance was well worth the Oscar among the six overall wins for the film.
If by some miracle we make it as far as the Germans in the World Cup, Vardy is a must. If Jones looked awful against Hazard today, Hummels has the pace of an oil tanker.
If by some miracle we make it as far as the Germans in the World Cup, Vardy is a must. If Jones looked awful against Hazard today, Hummels has the pace of an oil tanker.
If by some miracle we make it as far as the Germans in the World Cup, Vardy is a must. If Jones looked awful against Hazard today, Hummels has the pace of an oil tanker.
Sterling isn't exactly a slow coach...
I was thinking in place of Kane. I wonder if Southgate has the balls to do that? The second Frankfurt goal tonight came from a simple ball over the top. Hummels was favourite to get it but he was easily outpaced by the forward.
The Duchess of Sussex will be a British citizen within the year and ineligible for POTUS.
Surely her British citizenship be sorted immediately (or perhaps already has been)?
Or will she have to apply for a visa and prove Harry makes at least £18k per year?
...And pass the British Citizenship test (Life in the United Kingdom). Still her in-laws should be able to help her prep for that, as they seem to feature in a lot of the questions.
If by some miracle we make it as far as the Germans in the World Cup, Vardy is a must. If Jones looked awful against Hazard today, Hummels has the pace of an oil tanker.
Sterling isn't exactly a slow coach...
I was thinking in place of Kane. I wonder if Southgate has the balls to do that? The second Frankfurt goal tonight came from a simple ball over the top. Hummels was favourite to get it but he was easily outpaced by the forward.
This is Gareth "I am even more cautious than Roy" Southgate we are talking about.
I would have thought if we needed pace and attacking flair, a front three of Kane, Sterling and Rashford would give the Hummer just as much as Vardy being in there.
Chesterton's Fence says, in short, that you should never let someone reform something (a rule, an institution) if he tells you that the thing doesn't serve any purpose. The philosopher G.K. Chesterton vividly illustrated his idea by asking us to imagine a fence strung up across a road, representing any kind of law or institution that we might find odd or inexplicable. There's a certain type of reformer, says Chesterton, who
...goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a claim that every rule or institution you encounter probably exists for a reason. It might be a bad reason, an outdated reason, or even an evil reason, but the fence didn't just appear out of nowhere. As Chesterton put it,
[The] fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.
The great playwrite Robert Bolt in A Man for All Seasons puts similar sentiments regarding the law. When Will Roper wants to see the law ignored
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Not just that scene but certainly that in part persuaded me to be a lawyer. Just a brilliant play.
Ironically, the real Sir Thomas More would have cut a road through the law to go after the Devil.
But, it is a brilliant play.
The film is excellent too. Schofield's performance was well worth the Oscar among the six overall wins for the film.
More was a brilliant man, but he saw the law as a weapon to be used against enemies.
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
I fear this will be as popular as saying I like pineapple on my pizza whilst listening to Radiohead's Greatest Hits, but I never really *got* Pratchett. Yes, he could make some good one-liners, and he certainly had an excellent turn of phrase. But his writing never connected with me.
On the other hand, Douglas Adams' writing did. Both were undoubtedly brilliant writers, but one was for me, the other not. We have a friend who says the reverse, whilst Mrs J is a massive fan of both.
Having said that, I did go to a really good amateur play of Mort in Romsey ten or so years ago.
It certainly makes you less popular with me! In addition to consistent hilarity, Pratchett's work connected me with deep themes far more successfully than many authors for whom that is the primary intent, and far from just one liners his characterisation and plotting could be superb.
I see Theresa May, Vince Cable, Arlene Foster, even Nicola Sturgeon all managed to send tweets of congratulation to Harry and Meghan today.
Yet not one from Jeremy Corbyn
So what? That is something I really won't criticise Corbyn before - in any case no doubt his spinners should be taking care of such things for him.
So what? He is Leader of the Opposition and the potential next PM of this country. Whatever his private republican sympathies he could have at least given one tweet of congratulation to the newly weds which virtually every other political leader in the UK managed to do but him
Yes he could have, and it would have been very easy to do. But I'm not about to get into a flap that he didn't, and I am no fan of Corbyn.
More was a brilliant man, but he saw the law as a weapon to be used against enemies.
Quite so, but not unusual for 16th century England.
Interesting how that other c16th Thomas, Cromwell, has had his reputation transformed by a novel. When I was at school he was a nasty piece of work; now he's a working-class-lad-made-good.
More was a brilliant man, but he saw the law as a weapon to be used against enemies.
Quite so, but not unusual for 16th century England.
Interesting how that other c16th Thomas, Cromwell, has had his reputation transformed by a novel. When I was at school he was a nasty piece of work; now he's a working-class-lad-made-good.
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Yes I know. I'm using an exponentially smoothed moving average which has:
Con 41.7% Lab 39.5% LD 8.0% UKIP 3.3% Grn 2.6%
Ceredigion LIB gain from NAT : Fife North LIB gain from NAT : Glasgow t Glasgow area NAT gain from LAB : Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath NAT gain from LAB : Richmond Park LIB gain from CON : Rutherglen and Hamilton NAT gain from LAB : Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON : St Ives LIB gain from CON : Stirling NAT gain from CON :
More was a brilliant man, but he saw the law as a weapon to be used against enemies.
Quite so, but not unusual for 16th century England.
Interesting how that other c16th Thomas, Cromwell, has had his reputation transformed by a novel. When I was at school he was a nasty piece of work; now he's a working-class-lad-made-good.
That's Comprehensive education for you ....
Mine was a grammar school (shh - don't tell TSE!). Mantel went to a convent school IIRC. So I am not sure the comprehensive system can be blamed for either view of Cromwell
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Yes and even Survation now has the Tories ahead, albeit only just
Opinium has put the Tories 3% ahead before - as far back as last Autumn On the other hand, BMG had the Tories 3 % ahead last summer - yet their most recent poll has the parties level pegging.
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Yes I know. I'm using an exponentially smoothed moving average which has:
Con 41.7% Lab 39.5% LD 8.0% UKIP 3.3% Grn 2.6%
Ceredigion LIB gain from NAT : Fife North LIB gain from NAT : Glasgow t Glasgow area NAT gain from LAB : Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath NAT gain from LAB : Richmond Park LIB gain from CON : Rutherglen and Hamilton NAT gain from LAB : Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON : St Ives LIB gain from CON : Stirling NAT gain from CON :
I think Labour would gain from the SNP - rather than lose seats.
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Yes I know. I'm using an exponentially smoothed moving average which has:
Con 41.7% Lab 39.5% LD 8.0% UKIP 3.3% Grn 2.6%
Ceredigion LIB gain from NAT : Fife North LIB gain from NAT : Glasgow t Glasgow area NAT gain from LAB : Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath NAT gain from LAB : Richmond Park LIB gain from CON : Rutherglen and Hamilton NAT gain from LAB : Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON : St Ives LIB gain from CON : Stirling NAT gain from CON :
So increasingly out of date polls, better to wait a fortnight I would have thought?
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
The polling suggests opinion is shifting in favour of the UK staying in the single market, a position strongly opposed by most Tories.
Corbyn has also refused to back staying in the single market, saying its membership could threaten many of the economic policies Labour wishes to implement if and when it comes to power. In January 2017, only 32% of voters said staying in the single market should be prioritised over ending freedom of movement. Now 40% take that view
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Yes I know. I'm using an exponentially smoothed moving average which has:
Con 41.7% Lab 39.5% LD 8.0% UKIP 3.3% Grn 2.6%
Ceredigion LIB gain from NAT : Fife North LIB gain from NAT : Glasgow t Glasgow area NAT gain from LAB : Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath NAT gain from LAB : Richmond Park LIB gain from CON : Rutherglen and Hamilton NAT gain from LAB : Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON : St Ives LIB gain from CON : Stirling NAT gain from CON :
I think Labour would gain from the SNP - rather than lose seats.
Could be. I'm just using the Electoral Calculus prediction for Scotland that shows 3 SNP gains. But looking at the detail the SNP gains from Labour in each case is by 0.1% so too close to call. The SNP gain from CON in Stirling is more substantial.
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Yes I know. I'm using an exponentially smoothed moving average which has:
Con 41.7% Lab 39.5% LD 8.0% UKIP 3.3% Grn 2.6%
Ceredigion LIB gain from NAT : Fife North LIB gain from NAT : Glasgow t Glasgow area NAT gain from LAB : Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath NAT gain from LAB : Richmond Park LIB gain from CON : Rutherglen and Hamilton NAT gain from LAB : Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON : St Ives LIB gain from CON : Stirling NAT gain from CON :
I think Labour would gain from the SNP - rather than lose seats.
Could be. I'm just using the Electoral Calculus prediction for Scotland that shows 3 SNP gains. But looking at the detail the SNP gains from Labour in each case is by 0.1% so too close to call. The SNP gain from CON in Stirling is more substantial.
Stirling could well be a three-way marginal next time.
Yes and even Survation now has the Tories ahead, albeit only just
Opinium has put the Tories 3% ahead before - as far back as last Autumn On the other hand, BMG had the Tories 3 % ahead last summer - yet their most recent poll has the parties level pegging.
There is a lot of noise. You have to smooth it out. But I think you can confidently say the Tories are currently about 2% points ahead of Labour and LDs have gained about 1% point to 8%.
Seems like the trend is real, Tories now have a small lead.
Yes and enough for a small Tory majority on this poll
On the EMA (exponential moving average), the Tories are still 12 short of a majority.
Con 314 Lab 260 LD 16
On this new Opinium it is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories since the last general election which would see the Tories pick up 15 seats from Labour (including that of Ms Dent Coad) for an overall Tory majority of about 14
Yes I know. I'm using an exponentially smoothed moving average which has:
Con 41.7% Lab 39.5% LD 8.0% UKIP 3.3% Grn 2.6%
Ceredigion LIB gain from NAT : Fife North LIB gain from NAT : Glasgow t Glasgow area NAT gain from LAB : Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath NAT gain from LAB : Richmond Park LIB gain from CON : Rutherglen and Hamilton NAT gain from LAB : Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON : St Ives LIB gain from CON : Stirling NAT gain from CON :
So increasingly out of date polls, better to wait a fortnight I would have thought?
Then the current polls will be out of date, and you're having to rely on a noisy latest poll. It's a trade off between ageing information and noisy information.
The polling suggests opinion is shifting in favour of the UK staying in the single market, a position strongly opposed by most Tories.
Corbyn has also refused to back staying in the single market, saying its membership could threaten many of the economic policies Labour wishes to implement if and when it comes to power. In January 2017, only 32% of voters said staying in the single market should be prioritised over ending freedom of movement. Now 40% take that view
So still less than half the voters want to prioritise staying in the single market over ending free movement
Comments
Afua Hirsch"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/19/meghan-markles-wedding-was-a-celebration-of-blackness
My favourite individual quote from any Discworld book is
“In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.... Greebo went off like a claymore mine.”
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Meghan Markle, Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, Serena Williams...........
For the last 4/5 years, they have played insipid, dull football.
We want the verve back!
Yet not one from Jeremy Corbyn
On the other hand, Douglas Adams' writing did. Both were undoubtedly brilliant writers, but one was for me, the other not. We have a friend who says the reverse, whilst Mrs J is a massive fan of both.
Having said that, I did go to a really good amateur play of Mort in Romsey ten or so years ago.
The journos then went on to state that Mourinho is in the same boat. His tactics that won all those trophies for Chelsea are now seen as well known and strategies have been defined to combat them. Like Wenger, it is all Mourinho. His backroom team are there to implement exactly what he says.
In contrast, they stated Fergie, great manager via motivation and man management, but not a great coach or tactician. What he did instead, hired a number of different coaches over the years, bringing new ideas, new tactics etc, and leaned on a lot of what they said. As a result Man Utd managed to reinvent themselves every few years.
But, it is a brilliant play.
But I'll be charitable and forgive you... So what? That is something I really won't criticise Corbyn before - in any case no doubt his spinners should be taking care of such things for him.
Tories 43%
Labour 39%
LDs 6%
UKIP 4%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/19/tories-take-four-point-lead-over-labour-in-latest-survey
Or will she have to apply for a visa and prove Harry makes at least £18k per year?
I would have thought if we needed pace and attacking flair, a front three of Kane, Sterling and Rashford would give the Hummer just as much as Vardy being in there.
Con 314
Lab 260
LD 16
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
But it is exponentially weighted by 10% per poll.
Latest poll 10% weight
2nd latest 9%
3rd latest 8.1%
4th Latest 7.29%
5th latest 6.56%
6th latest 5.90%
340th latest 0.00000000000000003%
The weighting add up to 100%. 10%*(1/(1-0.9))
EPA is used in smoothing time series without arbitrary cut-off points on number of polls but giving greater weight to more recent polls.
Con 41.7%
Lab 39.5%
LD 8.0%
UKIP 3.3%
Grn 2.6%
Ceredigion LIB gain from NAT :
Fife North LIB gain from NAT :
Glasgow t Glasgow area NAT gain from LAB :
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath NAT gain from LAB :
Richmond Park LIB gain from CON :
Rutherglen and Hamilton NAT gain from LAB :
Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON :
St Ives LIB gain from CON :
Stirling NAT gain from CON :
Opinium's final poll then gave the Tories a 7% lead.
On the other hand, BMG had the Tories 3 % ahead last summer - yet their most recent poll has the parties level pegging.
Corbyn has also refused to back staying in the single market, saying its membership could threaten many of the economic policies Labour wishes to implement if and when it comes to power. In January 2017, only 32% of voters said staying in the single market should be prioritised over ending freedom of movement. Now 40% take that view
NEW THREAD