If Prince Andrew can continue to host events "on a commercial basis" at Buckingham Palace, can any member of the public hire the same rooms at the Palace on the same commercial basis?
If not, then a building being funded at massive cost to the taxpayer (renovation cost £350m over 10 years I believe) is being used for PRIVATE commercial gain by a member of the Royal Family.
How can this possibly be acceptable?
It is surely completely outrageous and Parliament should put a stop to it.
He basically needs to go away until he clears his name, if he can.
Clears his name from what exactly? He hasn't been charged with anything.
Fair cop. Probably shouldn't have used the phrase "clear his name".
Cheers for that.
The people I am most inclined to listen to in this ... Sarah Ferguson and Koo Stark ... agree that he is excellent in person to intimates, and Sarah F has him down as a fabulous dad. I give that more weight than all the media and activist abuse in the world.
And I suspect that Prince A probably does too when push comes to shove.
Absolutely. If the Lib Dems really were Liberal Democrats then I would be strongly tempted to lend them my support. But as long as they persist in their support for membership of the undemocratic and often illiberal EU and refuse to abide by the result of the 2016 referendum I will never vote for them.
One of my vain hopes is that once we have left the EU, the Lib Dems will give up their Europhile lunacy and concentrate on being a proper UK liberal party.
On the assumption the Conservatives win a healthy majority next month, we will presumably pass the WA and move into transition prior to leaving with an agreed trade deal on 31/12/20.
IF that happens (and I'm far from convinced), the LDs will indeed need to find a different path. As others have said, there's much in the manifesto that moderate Conservatives and centre-left individuals could support and of course Boris has made several hostages to fortune with his spending commitments so it remains to be seen if the Conservative spending splurge leads to issues with deficit and debt down the line.
Arguing to rejoin the EU may not seem to be "lunacy" in a few years - we'll see.
If Prince Andrew can continue to host events "on a commercial basis" at Buckingham Palace, can any member of the public hire the same rooms at the Palace on the same commercial basis?
If not, then a building being funded at massive cost to the taxpayer (renovation cost £350m over 10 years I believe) is being used for PRIVATE commercial gain by a member of the Royal Family.
How can this possibly be acceptable?
It is surely completely outrageous and Parliament should put a stop to it.
If Prince Andrew can continue to host events "on a commercial basis" at Buckingham Palace, can any member of the public hire the same rooms at the Palace on the same commercial basis?
If not, then a building being funded at massive cost to the taxpayer (renovation cost £350m over 10 years I believe) is being used for PRIVATE commercial gain by a member of the Royal Family.
How can this possibly be acceptable?
It is surely completely outrageous and Parliament should put a stop to it.
Have members of the Royal Family routinely been using Buckingham Palace (and other buildings) for private commercial purposes as a matter of course?
If so, I'm staggered and to me it would be the biggest scandal ever regarding the Royal Family - I would actually say it would be reason to end the Monarchy.
I think the public would be outraged.
Andrew needs to retire fully from public life at this point. If Pitch at the Palace is worth doing then another Royal can take it on. And it goes without saying that no Royal should benefit personally from it.
Honestly, this is common-sense stuff. How hard is it for the Royal flunkies to tell Andrew to stop being an arse. And if they won’t I will - for a modest fee.
The point is that this might well be far, far bigger than Prince Andrew.
If Andrew has been using the Palace for his own commercial activities, what about the other royals? Are they doing it too?
If Yes, forget Prince Andrew, he's an irrelevance.
To my mind it would / should be the end of the Royal Family period.
It has been reported that he takes a commission for any completed deals done via Pitch@Palace.
If Prince Andrew can continue to host events "on a commercial basis" at Buckingham Palace, can any member of the public hire the same rooms at the Palace on the same commercial basis?
If not, then a building being funded at massive cost to the taxpayer (renovation cost £350m over 10 years I believe) is being used for PRIVATE commercial gain by a member of the Royal Family.
How can this possibly be acceptable?
It is surely completely outrageous and Parliament should put a stop to it.
If Prince Andrew can continue to host events "on a commercial basis" at Buckingham Palace, can any member of the public hire the same rooms at the Palace on the same commercial basis?
If not, then a building being funded at massive cost to the taxpayer (renovation cost £350m over 10 years I believe) is being used for PRIVATE commercial gain by a member of the Royal Family.
How can this possibly be acceptable?
It is surely completely outrageous and Parliament should put a stop to it.
Have members of the Royal Family routinely been using Buckingham Palace (and other buildings) for private commercial purposes as a matter of course?
If so, I'm staggered and to me it would be the biggest scandal ever regarding the Royal Family - I would actually say it would be reason to end the Monarchy.
I think the public would be outraged.
Andrew needs to retire fully from public life at this point. If Pitch at the Palace is worth doing then another Royal can take it on. And it goes without saying that no Royal should benefit personally from it.
Honestly, this is common-sense stuff. How hard is it for the Royal flunkies to tell Andrew to stop being an arse. And if they won’t I will - for a modest fee.
The point is that this might well be far, far bigger than Prince Andrew.
If Andrew has been using the Palace for his own commercial activities, what about the other royals? Are they doing it too?
If Yes, forget Prince Andrew, he's an irrelevance.
To my mind it would / should be the end of the Royal Family period.
It has been reported that he takes a commission for any completed deals done via Pitch@Palace.
Not wanting to defend him, but it's the company that runs it that takes the commission, probably to offset operational costs?
The people I am most inclined to listen to in this ... Sarah Ferguson and Koo Stark ... agree that he is excellent in person to intimates, and Sarah F has him down as a fabulous dad. I give that more weight than all the media and activist abuse in the world.
And I suspect that Prince A probably does too when push comes to shove.
Why would his babymama either know anything about his alleged activities, or be regarded as an unbiased source if she did? And judging by the wording and content her tweet in support of him she is one of the very stupidest people in public life.
If Prince Andrew can continue to host events "on a commercial basis" at Buckingham Palace, can any member of the public hire the same rooms at the Palace on the same commercial basis?
If not, then a building being funded at massive cost to the taxpayer (renovation cost £350m over 10 years I believe) is being used for PRIVATE commercial gain by a member of the Royal Family.
How can this possibly be acceptable?
It is surely completely outrageous and Parliament should put a stop to it.
Have members of the Royal Family routinely been using Buckingham Palace (and other buildings) for private commercial purposes as a matter of course?
If so, I'm staggered and to me it would be the biggest scandal ever regarding the Royal Family - I would actually say it would be reason to end the Monarchy.
I think the public would be outraged.
Andrew needs to retire fully from public life at this point. If Pitch at the Palace is worth doing then another Royal can take it on. And it goes without saying that no Royal should benefit personally from it.
Honestly, this is common-sense stuff. How hard is it for the Royal flunkies to tell Andrew to stop being an arse. And if they won’t I will - for a modest fee.
Or even some nice porcelain cappuchino cups, with the Royal Crest on.....
I will throw in advice about their beverages for free.
Is there any reason why the murderer of the student in NZ "can't be identified"?
I assume they may be named after sentencing in February.
Feel very sorry for the lady’s parents, having to sit through some of the testimony.
It’s likely that the man convicted will appeal, on the grounds that he never intended to kill the lady, so he’s guilty of no more than manslaughter.
If his testimony is accurate, he’s also a victim of a game that went wrong.
The jury’s verdict suggests that they didn’t believe his testimony.
Every wrongful conviction involves a jury getting it wrong. Given the importance of juries, it is a shame research is banned.
No - that’s not necessarily the case at all.. The jury may well have been right to convict. on the basis of the evidence in front of them. But it may well be that the evidence was wrong eg the statistical evidence in the Sally Clarke case or the forensic evidence in the case of the Birmingham 6. Or that there was relevant evidence which was not disclosed and put before the jury (eg alibi evidence in the case of Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford 4). Or it could be that they were misdirected as to the law by the judge.
Has the abortion issue been cleared up yet? was it some sort of oversight in the manifesto? I can't believe they would genuinely make abortion legal up to the birth, has anyone ever argued in favour of that before? The UK already has some of the longest limits for abortions in the world.
I can't find any source other than the Catholic Herald article.
So far, no-one from Labour is officially disagreeing with the Catholic Herald’s view on the subject.
Now, one can expect the CH reaction to be somewhat biased towards their own long-standing views on the subject, but the lack of a rebuttal suggests that Labour’s policy is exactly how the CH describe it.
Birmingham Northfield a key target in Brum, as I was discussing with, iirc, Andy_JS, on here a couple of days ago.
And a finer example of how politics has changed could not be found. I was raised in Northfield in the 60s and early 70s, when it was (mainly) a pleasant, recently developed area with few problems. Today it is a problem area (especially around Ley Hill and Weoley). It illustrates how the Conservatives are now able to target such areas in a way never possible until recently. Edgbaston still has some very nice residential areas, especially around Harborne and, in days past, would be a far more natural Tory target - even based on todays demographics.
Indeed. Lots of circumstantial evidence reported on both sides though, it could be anything from a kinky game gone wrong to a premeditated murder, not an easy task for the jury.
If Prince Andrew can continue to host events "on a commercial basis" at Buckingham Palace, can any member of the public hire the same rooms at the Palace on the same commercial basis?
If not, then a building being funded at massive cost to the taxpayer (renovation cost £350m over 10 years I believe) is being used for PRIVATE commercial gain by a member of the Royal Family.
How can this possibly be acceptable?
It is surely completely outrageous and Parliament should put a stop to it.
Have members of the Royal Family routinely been using Buckingham Palace (and other buildings) for private commercial purposes as a matter of course?
If so, I'm staggered and to me it would be the biggest scandal ever regarding the Royal Family - I would actually say it would be reason to end the Monarchy.
I think the public would be outraged.
Andrew needs to retire fully from public life at this point. If Pitch at the Palace is worth doing then another Royal can take it on. And it goes without saying that no Royal should benefit personally from it.
Honestly, this is common-sense stuff. How hard is it for the Royal flunkies to tell Andrew to stop being an arse. And if they won’t I will - for a modest fee.
The point is that this might well be far, far bigger than Prince Andrew.
If Andrew has been using the Palace for his own commercial activities, what about the other royals? Are they doing it too?
If Yes, forget Prince Andrew, he's an irrelevance.
To my mind it would / should be the end of the Royal Family period.
I think you are misunderstanding
The original comment “on commercial terms” means that Andrew has to *pay* to use the rooms. ( he gets access that no one else does but that’s a perk his mother gives him)
It’s the same way I have to pay £500 to use my foundations office for a private event. It covers the costs but doesn’t leave them with a profit
The members at Hampstead Ladies Pond voted by quite a big majority to allow transgenders to frequent the facility on Hampstead Heath. It hasn't been an issue, probably because transgender users are rare. A friend did see one recenlty, and he/she did have a beard. Looked a bit odd apparently, but nobody fainted.
I went into the Ladies' by mistake last year in an up-market area, thinking it was unisex - the two women there glanced at me, paused, and I think quite visibly thought "Ah, this must be one of those trans people we read about, we must be tolerant", smiled vaguely and looked away.
In Moscow a few years ago, I remember a woman cleaner coming in and nonchalantly cleaned the floor around another bloke and me using the facilities. I was a bit startled at the time, but on reflection, why do we really get worked about privacy in something which we all do several times a day?
I don’t know about you but I do not go to the loo in front of strangers at all, let alone several times a day, and I most certainly do not want men coming into the ladies’ loos or changing rooms. If necessary, create some neutral loos/changing rooms etc.
But being a woman is not some sort of identity you can just put on just like that, just by announcing it. Womanhood is something real - not simply an identity. By denying that, the very real and different experiences of being a woman are being dismissed and marginalised. It sometimes feels awfully like another version of male bullying masquerading under a faux concern for trans people. It ought to be possible to protect the position of people who are transitioning to become women without denying the rights of women. Instead, it’s being done at their expense.
And now you know why I get so annoyed by Anglosphere loyalists. By defining "British" as an identity instead of, say, a commitment (live here, work here, pay taxes) they adopt an abstract rather than a concrete definition. And since it is abstract and nebulous, instead of concrete and definable, it can be morphed into whatever gubbins best suits the participant, regardless of its effect upon the inhabitants.
However, I suspect you and I may part company with respect to the resolution. If the past decade has taught me anything, it is that social change comes not from goodness but from force. If the trannies are strong, they will win. If the feminists are stronger, they will win. In neither case will goodness or tolerance be involved, except as buzzwords. Having gone through a decade where Leavers lied like bastards, boasted about it afterwards, abused the losers, and now seem set to do it all over again, I seem to have lost all my faith in that respect.
I really didn't want the decade to turn into a culture war. But I think it's going to anyway...
So far, no-one from Labour is officially disagreeing with the Catholic Herald’s view on the subject.
Now, one can expect the CH reaction to be somewhat biased towards their own long-standing views on the subject, but the lack of a rebuttal suggests that Labour’s policy is exactly how the CH describe it.
I think you'll find that the CH representation is lurid scaremongering.
Or rather you won't because Labour can't win this election.
Comments
https://order-order.com/2019/11/22/dr-writer-backs-labour-timetravel-1970s/
The people I am most inclined to listen to in this ... Sarah Ferguson and Koo Stark ... agree that he is excellent in person to intimates, and Sarah F has him down as a fabulous dad. I give that more weight than all the media and activist abuse in the world.
And I suspect that Prince A probably does too when push comes to shove.
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1197936973626978304?s=20
IF that happens (and I'm far from convinced), the LDs will indeed need to find a different path. As others have said, there's much in the manifesto that moderate Conservatives and centre-left individuals could support and of course Boris has made several hostages to fortune with his spending commitments so it remains to be seen if the Conservative spending splurge leads to issues with deficit and debt down the line.
Arguing to rejoin the EU may not seem to be "lunacy" in a few years - we'll see.
Birmingham Northfield a key target in Brum, as I was discussing with, iirc, Andy_JS, on here a couple of days ago.
There’s a very fine line to tread between the US version of freedom of speech, and interfering in elections.
New thread
No - that’s not necessarily the case at all.. The jury may well have been right to convict. on the basis of the evidence in front of them. But it may well be that the evidence was wrong eg the statistical evidence in the Sally Clarke case or the forensic evidence in the case of the Birmingham 6. Or that there was relevant evidence which was not disclosed and put before the jury (eg alibi evidence in the case of Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford 4). Or it could be that they were misdirected as to the law by the judge.
Now, one can expect the CH reaction to be somewhat biased towards their own long-standing views on the subject, but the lack of a rebuttal suggests that Labour’s policy is exactly how the CH describe it.
The original comment “on commercial terms” means that Andrew has to *pay* to use the rooms. ( he gets access that no one else does but that’s a perk his mother gives him)
It’s the same way I have to pay £500 to use my foundations office for a private event. It covers the costs but doesn’t leave them with a profit
However, I suspect you and I may part company with respect to the resolution. If the past decade has taught me anything, it is that social change comes not from goodness but from force. If the trannies are strong, they will win. If the feminists are stronger, they will win. In neither case will goodness or tolerance be involved, except as buzzwords. Having gone through a decade where Leavers lied like bastards, boasted about it afterwards, abused the losers, and now seem set to do it all over again, I seem to have lost all my faith in that respect.
I really didn't want the decade to turn into a culture war. But I think it's going to anyway...
Pause.
I am an adult with a mortgage. Really. ...
Or rather you won't because Labour can't win this election.