Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
Well, yes, as we all can. And such choices have consequences too.
Would you release a statement to the media about your employer before speaking to them first about your serious concerns and desire for a different relationship?
It's a basic courtesy if nothing else, and shows respect for others.
That would certainly be true of any normal employer Casino.
They were a fully established part of the royal family, doing a job for them, and in receipt of civil list (or sovereign grant, if you prefer) payments.
Other than you obvious personal distaste for the monarchy, in what way did they too not deserve the same courtesy?
When did he apply for that "job"? What was the selection criteria, when was he interviewed?
He's an individual who can and should be respected to be able to make his own grown up choices how he wants and when he wants.
That's true but he can't carry on taking the state's money in the meantime.
"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent" is simply not good enough; if you quit you stop taking your salary.
Not so. If I quit tomorrow I’d give three months notice.
Mmmm... I've got a feeling they will be receiving their handouts long after they have 'stepped back'.
Probably. I’m not defending the system, I think the whole thing is a joke TBH. The world’s most luxurious welfare system.
I can't watch anything on it for more than 30 seconds with a painful buffering pink doughnut of death, and have no problems at all with NowTV, Amazon and Netflix.
And this is the service I (compulsorily) pay for.
It works for me, and I've just watched Silent Witness live on iplayer.
iPlayer is fine for me too (appears bullet-proof in fact).
That's not the problem. It's not fibre-optic but it's as fast as hell on everything else.
It must be something to do with your set-up though because I am not aware of widespread reports of issues and it is still probably one of, if not the, most used streaming service in the UK.
Surprisingly iPlayer isn't. Only 15% market share these days of the UK market.
Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
Well, yes, as we all can. And such choices have consequences too.
Would you release a statement to the media about your employer before speaking to them first about your serious concerns and desire for a different relationship?
It's a basic courtesy if nothing else, and shows respect for others.
That would certainly be true of any normal employer Casino.
They were a fully established part of the royal family, doing a job for them, and in receipt of civil list (or sovereign grant, if you prefer) payments.
Other than you obvious personal distaste for the monarchy, in what way did they too not deserve the same courtesy?
When did he apply for that "job"? What was the selection criteria, when was he interviewed?
He's an individual who can and should be respected to be able to make his own grown up choices how he wants and when he wants.
That's true but he can't carry on taking the state's money in the meantime.
"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent" is simply not good enough; if you quit you stop taking your salary.
Not so. If I quit tomorrow I’d give three months notice.
Mmmm... I've got a feeling they will be receiving their handouts long after they have 'stepped back'.
Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
Well, yes, as we all can. And such choices have consequences too.
Would you release a statement to the media about your employer before speaking to them first about your serious concerns and desire for a different relationship?
It's a basic courtesy if nothing else, and shows respect for others.
That would certainly be true of any normal employer Casino.
They were a fully established part of the royal family, doing a job for them, and in receipt of civil list (or sovereign grant, if you prefer) payments.
Other than you obvious personal distaste for the monarchy, in what way did they too not deserve the same courtesy?
When did he apply for that "job"? What was the selection criteria, when was he interviewed?
He's an individual who can and should be respected to be able to make his own grown up choices how he wants and when he wants.
That's true but he can't carry on taking the state's money in the meantime.
"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent" is simply not good enough; if you quit you stop taking your salary.
Not so. If I quit tomorrow I’d give three months notice.
Mmmm... I've got a feeling they will be receiving their handouts long after they have 'stepped back'.
Not if the reports from the Palace tonight are anything to go by, if they wish to become 'progressively' financially independent they can do so, no royal duties then no sovereign grant money, no royal houses or Palace apartments and no chauffeur driven cars or royal flights
I can't watch anything on it for more than 30 seconds with a painful buffering pink doughnut of death, and have no problems at all with NowTV, Amazon and Netflix.
And this is the service I (compulsorily) pay for.
It works for me, and I've just watched Silent Witness live on iplayer.
iPlayer is fine for me too (appears bullet-proof in fact).
That's not the problem. It's not fibre-optic but it's as fast as hell on everything else.
It must be something to do with your set-up though because I am not aware of widespread reports of issues and it is still probably one of, if not the, most used streaming service in the UK.
Surprisingly iPlayer isn't. Only 15% market share these days of the UK market.
I was trying to find some numbers on that, do you have a link?
Even 15% could be among the top when you consider the wide market of streaming providers. This survey seems to suggest iPlayer was the second most used streaming service in 2018, not sure how reliable that is:
A final thought on last nights apparently ineffective Iranian missile strikes.
1. This idea that they sought to 'miss' or 'avoid many casualties' completely fails to understand the targets and types of weaponry used. Sixteen ballistic missiles no less is not deliberately avoiding casualties. Unless they literally didn't put warheads in the missiles, which from the satellite images appears a bit of a stretch, it doesn't make sense. Though they do have guidance systems, this is not exactly a weapon of choice for being super precise and avoiding killing someone.
2. Whilst Iran like many of its Arab neighbours is in so many ways a paper tiger, despite the blood thirsty rhetoric, this issue clearly isn't done. Whether through 3rd parties or something else, they will have something to get even because last night clearly wasn't it, given the end result. .
I can't watch anything on it for more than 30 seconds with a painful buffering pink doughnut of death, and have no problems at all with NowTV, Amazon and Netflix.
And this is the service I (compulsorily) pay for.
It works for me, and I've just watched Silent Witness live on iplayer.
iPlayer is fine for me too (appears bullet-proof in fact).
That's not the problem. It's not fibre-optic but it's as fast as hell on everything else.
It must be something to do with your set-up though because I am not aware of widespread reports of issues and it is still probably one of, if not the, most used streaming service in the UK.
Surprisingly iPlayer isn't. Only 15% market share these days of the UK market.
I was trying to find some numbers on that, do you have a link?
Even 15% could be among the top when you consider the wide market of streaming providers. This survey seems to suggest iPlayer was the second most used streaming service in 2018, not sure how reliable that is:
Five years ago, iPlayer had a 40% share of the UK streaming video market, but this has declined to 15% following the explosive growth of Netflix and other streaming services, with further falls expected unless it is allowed to make urgent changes – potentially putting the corporation’s future at risk.
Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
Well, yes, as we all can. And such choices have consequences too.
Would you release a statement to the media about your employer before speaking to them first about your serious concerns and desire for a different relationship?
It's a basic courtesy if nothing else, and shows respect for others.
That would certainly be true of any normal employer Casino.
They were a fully established part of the royal family, doing a job for them, and in receipt of civil list (or sovereign grant, if you prefer) payments.
Other than you obvious personal distaste for the monarchy, in what way did they too not deserve the same courtesy?
When did he apply for that "job"? What was the selection criteria, when was he interviewed?
He's an individual who can and should be respected to be able to make his own grown up choices how he wants and when he wants.
That's true but he can't carry on taking the state's money in the meantime.
"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent" is simply not good enough; if you quit you stop taking your salary.
Not so. If I quit tomorrow I’d give three months notice.
Mmmm... I've got a feeling they will be receiving their handouts long after they have 'stepped back'.
Unless a quick and dirty DNA test sets them free.
I think it might be too late for that. Surely one has been conducted and if it had been known before that the results were, shall we say, 'of public interest' why only say now?
Nope, I think you can file that one under 'urban myths'.
A final thought on last nights apparently ineffective Iranian missile strikes.
1. This idea that they sought to 'miss' or 'avoid many casualties' completely fails to understand the targets and types of weaponry used. Sixteen ballistic missiles no less is not deliberately avoiding casualties. Unless they literally didn't put warheads in the missiles, which from the satellite images appears a bit of a stretch, it doesn't make sense. Though they do have guidance systems, this is not exactly a weapon of choice for being super precise and avoiding killing someone.
2. Whilst Iran like many of its Arab neighbours is in so many ways a paper tiger, despite the blood thirsty rhetoric, this issue clearly isn't done. Whether through 3rd parties or something else, they will have something to get even because last night clearly wasn't it, given the end result. .
I am not an expert, but this looks to me like a missile that didn't actually explode:
Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
Well, yes, as we all can. And such choices have consequences too.
Would you release a statement to the media about your employer before speaking to them first about your serious concerns and desire for a different relationship?
It's a basic courtesy if nothing else, and shows respect for others.
That would certainly be true of any normal employer Casino.
They were a fully established part of the royal family, doing a job for them, and in receipt of civil list (or sovereign grant, if you prefer) payments.
Other than you obvious personal distaste for the monarchy, in what way did they too not deserve the same courtesy?
When did he apply for that "job"? What was the selection criteria, when was he interviewed?
He's an individual who can and should be respected to be able to make his own grown up choices how he wants and when he wants.
That's true but he can't carry on taking the state's money in the meantime.
"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent" is simply not good enough; if you quit you stop taking your salary.
Not so. If I quit tomorrow I’d give three months notice.
Mmmm... I've got a feeling they will be receiving their handouts long after they have 'stepped back'.
Unless a quick and dirty DNA test sets them free.
I think it might be too late for that. Surely one has been conducted and if it had been known before that the results were, shall we say, 'of public interest' why only say now?
Nope, I think you can file that one under 'urban myths'.
Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
Well, yes, as we all can. And such choices have consequences too.
Would you release a statement to the media about your employer before speaking to them first about your serious concerns and desire for a different relationship?
It's a basic courtesy if nothing else, and shows respect for others.
That would certainly be true of any normal employer Casino.
They were a fully established part of the royal family, doing a job for them, and in receipt of civil list (or sovereign grant, if you prefer) payments.
Other than you obvious personal distaste for the monarchy, in what way did they too not deserve the same courtesy?
When did he apply for that "job"? What was the selection criteria, when was he interviewed?
He's an individual who can and should be respected to be able to make his own grown up choices how he wants and when he wants.
That's true but he can't carry on taking the state's money in the meantime.
"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent" is simply not good enough; if you quit you stop taking your salary.
Not so. If I quit tomorrow I’d give three months notice.
Mmmm... I've got a feeling they will be receiving their handouts long after they have 'stepped back'.
Unless a quick and dirty DNA test sets them free.
I think it might be too late for that. Surely one has been conducted and if it had been known before that the results were, shall we say, 'of public interest' why only say now?
Nope, I think you can file that one under 'urban myths'.
Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
At the moment they are living a life of luxury at our expense. If they were ordinary people no-one would give a toss about their plans. So they do - as a matter of politeness, if nothing else - have obligations to their family and to HMQ - and us - from whom they derive their status, their home and wealth.
If they don’t want the obligations, then they don’t also get the advantages.
Yes they have clearly said that they want to be financially independent.
Good. They can start by giving up Frogmore Cottage and repaying the sums spent on it for their benefit. Harry is a multi-millionaire. Becoming financially independent is not something they have to work towards. They already are financially independent. So they can give up the titles and push off to live a private life starting tomorrow.
A final thought on last nights apparently ineffective Iranian missile strikes.
1. This idea that they sought to 'miss' or 'avoid many casualties' completely fails to understand the targets and types of weaponry used. Sixteen ballistic missiles no less is not deliberately avoiding casualties. Unless they literally didn't put warheads in the missiles, which from the satellite images appears a bit of a stretch, it doesn't make sense. Though they do have guidance systems, this is not exactly a weapon of choice for being super precise and avoiding killing someone.
2. Whilst Iran like many of its Arab neighbours is in so many ways a paper tiger, despite the blood thirsty rhetoric, this issue clearly isn't done. Whether through 3rd parties or something else, they will have something to get even because last night clearly wasn't it, given the end result. .
I am not an expert, but this looks to me like a missile that didn't actually explode:
A final thought on last nights apparently ineffective Iranian missile strikes.
1. This idea that they sought to 'miss' or 'avoid many casualties' completely fails to understand the targets and types of weaponry used. Sixteen ballistic missiles no less is not deliberately avoiding casualties. Unless they literally didn't put warheads in the missiles, which from the satellite images appears a bit of a stretch, it doesn't make sense. Though they do have guidance systems, this is not exactly a weapon of choice for being super precise and avoiding killing someone.
2. Whilst Iran like many of its Arab neighbours is in so many ways a paper tiger, despite the blood thirsty rhetoric, this issue clearly isn't done. Whether through 3rd parties or something else, they will have something to get even because last night clearly wasn't it, given the end result. .
I am not an expert, but this looks to me like a missile that didn't actually explode:
A final thought on last nights apparently ineffective Iranian missile strikes.
1. This idea that they sought to 'miss' or 'avoid many casualties' completely fails to understand the targets and types of weaponry used. Sixteen ballistic missiles no less is not deliberately avoiding casualties. Unless they literally didn't put warheads in the missiles, which from the satellite images appears a bit of a stretch, it doesn't make sense. Though they do have guidance systems, this is not exactly a weapon of choice for being super precise and avoiding killing someone.
2. Whilst Iran like many of its Arab neighbours is in so many ways a paper tiger, despite the blood thirsty rhetoric, this issue clearly isn't done. Whether through 3rd parties or something else, they will have something to get even because last night clearly wasn't it, given the end result. .
Go on, Trump, you know you want to!
"Our God is a great God. He makes great missiles. Their God is a loser. He makes loser's missiles...."
It would be an idiotic situation for any other person to have to ask their 90-something gran for permission to do a different job, oh and by the way Gran is also the head of the religion around here.
Why should they? They are human beings in a free country, they can do WTF they like.
At the moment they are living a life of luxury at our expense. If they were ordinary people no-one would give a toss about their plans. So they do - as a matter of politeness, if nothing else - have obligations to their family and to HMQ - and us - from whom they derive their status, their home and wealth.
If they don’t want the obligations, then they don’t also get the advantages.
Yes they have clearly said that they want to be financially independent.
Good. They can start by giving up Frogmore Cottage and repaying the sums spent on it for their benefit. Harry is a multi-millionaire. Becoming financially independent is not something they have to work towards. They already are financially independent. So they can give up the titles and push off to live a private life starting tomorrow.
Good idea, Froggers can be turned over to a youth club to keep the teens of Windsor off the streets.
Oh great. Another Fergie and Andrew. If they keep Frogmore House while out to milk their royal connections, that is the sort of thing that will do for the monarchy. If they want to be out, then out they go.
It would be an idiotic situation for any other person to have to ask their 90-something gran for permission to do a different job, oh and by the way Gran is also the head of the religion around here.
Not if the Nan was head of the family business that you were handsomely paid to work for. I couldn’t really care less about the Royal family, but that does seem bad manners. Who upsets their Nan?! Maybe he dislikes her slightly because of the way Lady Di was treated?
A final thought on last nights apparently ineffective Iranian missile strikes.
1. This idea that they sought to 'miss' or 'avoid many casualties' completely fails to understand the targets and types of weaponry used. Sixteen ballistic missiles no less is not deliberately avoiding casualties. Unless they literally didn't put warheads in the missiles, which from the satellite images appears a bit of a stretch, it doesn't make sense. Though they do have guidance systems, this is not exactly a weapon of choice for being super precise and avoiding killing someone.
2. Whilst Iran like many of its Arab neighbours is in so many ways a paper tiger, despite the blood thirsty rhetoric, this issue clearly isn't done. Whether through 3rd parties or something else, they will have something to get even because last night clearly wasn't it, given the end result. .
Go on, Trump, you know you want to!
"Our God is a great God. He makes great missiles. Their God is a loser. He makes loser's missiles...."
Do you know I actually thought about this being his response as it became clear in the early hours that it was a piss poor effort from Iran. Just use their failure as a way of not responding by framing them as a joke.
Good news that Nigel Evans has got his old job back.
He had to resign when he was charged a few years ago; Eleanor Laing took his place and then when Evans was acquitted he'd lost his job (and substantial salary) for no reason.
Just to add to the sense of farce, to all intents and purposes it's already too late. With over 40% of those eligible now having made a nomination, does Gardiner (or McCluskey) realise that he'll need about 17% of those yet to make a nomination to back him unless other candidates withdraw?
The procedural rules seem clear that once submitted, a nomination can't be withdrawn unless the candidate nominated has withdrawn:
"All nominations will remain valid once submitted unless the nomination is formally withdrawn (if the nominated candidate has withdrawn in writing to the General Secretary). MPs and MEPs who nominated a candidate who withdraws or is disqualified will be entitled to submit a further nomination prior to the deadline for PLP and EPLP nominations. Nomination forms will be re-issued to affected MPs and MEPs."
Comments
Even 15% could be among the top when you consider the wide market of streaming providers. This survey seems to suggest iPlayer was the second most used streaming service in 2018, not sure how reliable that is:
https://www.finder.com/uk/tv-streaming-statistics
1. This idea that they sought to 'miss' or 'avoid many casualties' completely fails to understand the targets and types of weaponry used. Sixteen ballistic missiles no less is not deliberately avoiding casualties. Unless they literally didn't put warheads in the missiles, which from the satellite images appears a bit of a stretch, it doesn't make sense. Though they do have guidance systems, this is not exactly a weapon of choice for being super precise and avoiding killing someone.
2. Whilst Iran like many of its Arab neighbours is in so many ways a paper tiger, despite the blood thirsty rhetoric, this issue clearly isn't done. Whether through 3rd parties or something else, they will have something to get even because last night clearly wasn't it, given the end result. .
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/25/bbc-admits-iplayer-has-lost-streaming-fight-with-netflix
Technically iPlayer is a massively inferior product to many streaming services.
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1214895735495372800?s=20
Nope, I think you can file that one under 'urban myths'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51042156
Surely the debris would be smaller and more widely-scattered?
"Two of the missiles aimed at Al Asad fell in the Hitan area, west of the town of Hit, and did not explode, according to the Iraqi military."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAkuJXGldrM
Starmer now 1.5. RLB out to 6.6 - hope at least some people followed my tip to lay her at 3.7.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/08/labour-membership-doesnt-want-return-to-1997
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1214981419690278912
"Our God is a great God. He makes great missiles. Their God is a loser. He makes loser's missiles...."
This thread has announced it is stepping away from royal duties
He had to resign when he was charged a few years ago; Eleanor Laing took his place and then when Evans was acquitted he'd lost his job (and substantial salary) for no reason.
The procedural rules seem clear that once submitted, a nomination can't be withdrawn unless the candidate nominated has withdrawn:
"All nominations will remain valid once submitted unless the
nomination is formally withdrawn (if the nominated candidate has
withdrawn in writing to the General Secretary). MPs and MEPs who
nominated a candidate who withdraws or is disqualified will be entitled
to submit a further nomination prior to the deadline for PLP and EPLP
nominations. Nomination forms will be re-issued to affected MPs and
MEPs."