I don't support the ban for that. Some sort of fine and suspended ban would have been smarter.
He wasn’t banned for that. He was banned for repeated poor behaviour over a pattern of two years.
Just as nobody gets banned for doing 36 in a 30 limit, but get caught doing it four times in three years and you will get a ban.
He touched Smith in a confrontation?
He was originally accused of deliberately hitting Smith while celebrating his wicket, which would have led to an instant ban. He appealed, and it was downgraded to the same level as this one. But given that was the third time he had been warned about his behaviour, for him to do it again was, to put it mildly, foolish.
The irony is if he hadn’t appealed that decision he wouldn’t have got a ban now.
I’m not arguing with you, you are right.
I also asked you 5 months ago, who from county cricket is coming to fill the holes Englands batting line up, and you said Sibley and Crawley. Those two, and the young pope are doing okay.
Labuschagne Ripping it up for Aussies. Another stand out from 2019 county cricket, Glamorgan not the same without him.
“If someone had told me I’d be standing here in 2020 saying I was going to be leader of the Labour Party and the next Prime Minister I’d have thought they had stumbled out of the Haçienda having taken one or two illicit substances.”
Fair play to RLB, that’s a decent line.
She's not going to be the next Prime Minister.
The Hacienda closed in 1997. She was 18.
So just about possible I suppose.
Plenty of 18 year olds buzzing about in there when I last visited (1995/96 I think)
That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
It's not a woman thing, though, is it? It would be just the same if a daughter of a monarch married someone with a mind of his own. None of the royal family are allowed to have minds of their own. Actually, they are: they're not just allowed to speak them. Remember the fuss when the Prince of Wales deigned to express a fairly unsurprising opinion on a subject as anodyne as architecture? Speaking their minds in any way a) alienates people, b) makes use of a platform many are not really sure they should have, and c) takes away the magic. If you're going to have an opinion, it genuinely has to be as uncontroversial and watertight as 'it's good for young people to get some healthy exercise in the outdoors'. I say this as an uncommitted republican who privately agrees with the PoW's views on architecture but am uncomfortable with him having a position to express it.
The really admirable thing about the queen is that she betrays almost no trace of ego whatsoever. There is alsways a flurry of excitement when some rumour of a personal view on a matter emerges, but no-one is really sure. It's astonishing, and admirable, and has almost no paralell anywhere else in the world; possibly it is unique in history. She makes the monarchy work the only way it possibly can, and she has been doing this job for far longer than most of us have been alive. It's astonishing. But once the royal family (and there is a blurred line now with how far out the royal family stops - but it must overlap at least to some extent with where the civil list stops) starts speaking its mind, you start to raise questions over whether this is in fact the job of an elected politician, and whether therefore we ought to come up with some other system for a head of state.
You are correct.
Hence why the concept of a royal family is oppressive (to its members), and fucking bonkers.
It’s no life at all, and those born into it have virtually no choice but to endure it.
That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
Not just women. Prince Philip faced exactly the same problem. If you don’t like or want it then don’t bloody join. But if you do accept that that there are downsides to the privileges you get.
I question the claim that she was not accepted. She was seen as a breath of fresh air. Invited to Sandringham after the engagement. Harry was given a role with the Commonwealth and Meghan made a great play of weaving that into her wedding dress. HMQ made a very public point of inviting her to to a joint engagement very early on, a privilege not granted to Kate or Fergie or Edward’s wife. She made well regarded speeches in the 3 overseas tours they made; she was given patronages which played to her strengths (the National Theatre, for instance).
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
You make a pretty good case to be rid of the whole cruel institution.
I don't support the ban for that. Some sort of fine and suspended ban would have been smarter.
He wasn’t banned for that. He was banned for repeated poor behaviour over a pattern of two years.
Just as nobody gets banned for doing 36 in a 30 limit, but get caught doing it four times in three years and you will get a ban.
He touched Smith in a confrontation?
He was originally accused of deliberately hitting Smith while celebrating his wicket, which would have led to an instant ban. He appealed, and it was downgraded to the same level as this one. But given that was the third time he had been warned about his behaviour, for him to do it again was, to put it mildly, foolish.
The irony is if he hadn’t appealed that decision he wouldn’t have got a ban now.
I’m not arguing with you, you are right.
I also asked you 5 months ago, who from county cricket is coming to fill the holes Englands batting line up, and you said Sibley and Crawley. Those two, and the young pope are doing okay.
Labuschagne Ripping it up for Aussies. Another stand out from 2019 county cricket, Glamorgan not the same without him.
One more to watch - James Bracey. Will be in Division 1 next season and I think a big season from him will see him in at number 3 behind Burns and Sibley.
£300 to back Nandy at 15... if that YouGov is anywhere near accurate, how can she be even a 6% chance?
She's almost certainly going to get on the ballot, if the rumours about the GMB endorsing her next week are true. By contrast, I can't see Phillips or Thornberry getting on via the affiliates route, and it's going to be a struggle for them to get the required 35 CLP nominations if the early ones are anything to go by. If Phillips and Thornberry are eliminated before the final ballot, she'll be in a three horse race with RLB and Starmer. If they both underwhelm in the hustings, and she does well, people may well take notice of her. And the fact far fewer Labour members know about her than either Phillips or Thornberry, means she has more potential than them to grow her support.
That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
Not just women. Prince Philip faced exactly the same problem. If you don’t like or want it then don’t bloody join. But if you do accept that that there are downsides to the privileges you get.
I question the claim that she was not accepted. She was seen as a breath of fresh air. Invited to Sandringham after the engagement. Harry was given a role with the Commonwealth and Meghan made a great play of weaving that into her wedding dress. HMQ made a very public point of inviting her to to a joint engagement very early on, a privilege not granted to Kate or Fergie or Edward’s wife. She made well regarded speeches in the 3 overseas tours they made; she was given patronages which played to her strengths (the National Theatre, for instance).
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
You make a pretty good case to be rid of the whole cruel institution.
Well quite. The ‘defences‘ it has had this evening seem more like compelling cases for the prosecution.
That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
Not just women. Prince Philip faced exactly the same problem. If you don’t like or want it then don’t bloody join. But if you do accept that that there are downsides to the privileges you get.
I question the claim that she was not accepted. She was seen as a breath of fresh air. Invited to Sandringham after the engagement. Harry was given a role with the Commonwealth and Meghan made a great play of weaving that into her wedding dress. HMQ made a very public point of inviting her to to a joint engagement very early on, a privilege not granted to Kate or Fergie or Edward’s wife. She made well regarded speeches in the 3 overseas tours they made; she was given patronages which played to her strengths (the National Theatre, for instance).
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
You make a pretty good case to be rid of the whole cruel institution.
I think it works - for now - better than any likely alternatives. We don’t need any more constitutional tinkering for the moment, and certainly not in response to one prince’s personal dramas. Charles and William seem well set up to take it forward. But who knows how we will feel after HMQ goes.
But, yes, anyone other than those in the direct line of succession should get no titles, royal status, public money and be treated as normal individuals. Belatedly it seems as if they’re getting it - with the slimmed down monarchy idea. If this affair pushes that forward so much the better. The Swedish RF did something similar recently.
That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
Not just women. Prince Philip faced exactly the same problem. If you don’t like or want it then don’t bloody join. But if you do accept that that there are downsides to the privileges you get.
I question the claim that she was not accepted. She was seen as a breath of fresh air. Invited to Sandringham after the engagement. Harry was given a role with the Commonwealth and Meghan made a great play of weaving that into her wedding dress. HMQ made a very public point of inviting her to to a joint engagement very early on, a privilege not granted to Kate or Fergie or Edward’s wife. She made well regarded speeches in the 3 overseas tours they made; she was given patronages which played to her strengths (the National Theatre, for instance).
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
You make a pretty good case to be rid of the whole cruel institution.
I think it works - for now - better than any likely alternatives. We don’t need any more constitutional tinkering for the moment, and certainly not in response to one prince’s personal dramas. Charles and William seem well set up to take it forward. But who knows how we will feel after HMQ goes.
But, yes, anyone other than those in the direct line of succession should get no titles, royal status, public money and be treated as normal individuals. Belatedly it seems as if they’re getting it - with the slimmed down monarchy idea. If this affair pushes that forward so much the better. The Swedish RF did something similar recently.
I thought as you did until recently.
Then we had the Andrew interview. And I thought, the problem with the genetic lottery system is we're constantly at risk of getting a King Andrew.
Whoever writes the script for the royal soap opera is doing an absolutely brilliant job. It certainly keeps the audience coming back for more, and it supports an entire industry of add-ons such as the Daily Mail, tours of royal locations etc etc. The latest plot twist is masterly.
I don't support the ban for that. Some sort of fine and suspended ban would have been smarter.
He wasn’t banned for that. He was banned for repeated poor behaviour over a pattern of two years.
Just as nobody gets banned for doing 36 in a 30 limit, but get caught doing it four times in three years and you will get a ban.
He touched Smith in a confrontation?
He was originally accused of deliberately hitting Smith while celebrating his wicket, which would have led to an instant ban. He appealed, and it was downgraded to the same level as this one. But given that was the third time he had been warned about his behaviour, for him to do it again was, to put it mildly, foolish.
The irony is if he hadn’t appealed that decision he wouldn’t have got a ban now.
I’m not arguing with you, you are right.
I also asked you 5 months ago, who from county cricket is coming to fill the holes Englands batting line up, and you said Sibley and Crawley. Those two, and the young pope are doing okay.
Labuschagne Ripping it up for Aussies. Another stand out from 2019 county cricket, Glamorgan not the same without him.
One more to watch - James Bracey. Will be in Division 1 next season and I think a big season from him will see him in at number 3 behind Burns and Sibley.
Plus, for the bowling - Ed Barnard.
You haven’t let us down yet. Bracey kept well at times last season too.
Is Ed Barnard quick enough for test cricket? England selectors tend to prefer that extra pace for test match tracks? If you had to pick England bowler simply on extra yard of pace than their uncapped peers who would you go for?
That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
Not just women. Prince Philip faced exactly the same problem. If you don’t like or want it then don’t bloody join. But if you do accept that that there are downsides to the privileges you get.
I question the claim that she was not accepted. She was seen as a breath of fresh air. Invited to Sandringham after the engagement. Harry was given a role with the Commonwealth and Meghan made a great play of weaving that into her wedding dress. HMQ made a very public point of inviting her to to a joint engagement very early on, a privilege not granted to Kate or Fergie or Edward’s wife. She made well regarded speeches in the 3 overseas tours they made; she was given patronages which played to her strengths (the National Theatre, for instance).
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
You make a pretty good case to be rid of the whole cruel institution.
Well quite. The ‘defences‘ it has had this evening seem more like compelling cases for the prosecution.
I don’t seek to defend it. I’d rather poke my own eyes out than live their lives and the public’s expectations of them and tormenting of them when they don’t measure up is very cruel. Hence why it should be so very much smaller than the rather bloated family it has become. The only royal child who has got it right and did so 40 years ago was Anne - refusing titles for her children and spouse - doing her bit and not giving a stuff about the press.
I certainly would not trust any of our current crop of politicians to come up with anything other than a dog’s breakfast if they tried to come up with a republican alternative, much like the mess they have made of everything else they’ve touched.
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
You make a pretty good case to be rid of the whole cruel institution.
I think it works - for now - better than any likely alternatives. We don’t need any more constitutional tinkering for the moment, and certainly not in response to one prince’s personal dramas. Charles and William seem well set up to take it forward. But who knows how we will feel after HMQ goes.
But, yes, anyone other than those in the direct line of succession should get no titles, royal status, public money and be treated as normal individuals. Belatedly it seems as if they’re getting it - with the slimmed down monarchy idea. If this affair pushes that forward so much the better. The Swedish RF did something similar recently.
I thought as you did until recently.
Then we had the Andrew interview. And I thought, the problem with the genetic lottery system is we're constantly at risk of getting a King Andrew.
The problem with the election lottery system is that we’re constantly at risk of getting people like, ooh, Tom Watson or Chris Williamson, in a position where they can cause harm.
No system is perfect. But before you get rid of one system you really have to have a well thought out plan for what you replace it with.
Much like, say, to pick something at random, Brexit ......
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
You make a pretty good case to be rid of the whole cruel institution.
I think it works - for now - better than any likely alternatives. We don’t need any more constitutional tinkering for the moment, and certainly not in response to one prince’s personal dramas. Charles and William seem well set up to take it forward. But who knows how we will feel after HMQ goes.
But, yes, anyone other than those in the direct line of succession should get no titles, royal status, public money and be treated as normal individuals. Belatedly it seems as if they’re getting it - with the slimmed down monarchy idea. If this affair pushes that forward so much the better. The Swedish RF did something similar recently.
I thought as you did until recently.
Then we had the Andrew interview. And I thought, the problem with the genetic lottery system is we're constantly at risk of getting a King Andrew.
The problem with the election lottery system is that we’re constantly at risk of getting people like, ooh, Tom Watson or Chris Williamson, in a position where they can cause harm.
No system is perfect. But before you get rid of one system you really have to have a well thought out plan for what you replace it with.
Much like, say, to pick something at random, Brexit ......
Apparently Bozo will speak to the nation on Brexit day .
I can hardly wait !
He’ll be receiving the first commemorative Brexit coin . Which has some guff on it about peace and friendship to all ! Someone pass me the sick bag !
Will need more than a bag, large bucket at minimum
The Big Ben bong debate just adds the final heave into the sick bag ! Remainers are getting blamed that there’s likely to be no bong ! Bizarely the government which has had ages to plan this and are full of Leavers seem to be avoiding the flak !
But what we’re seeing now is just a foretaste of what’s to come , even with Leavers fully in charge they’ll still be blaming everyone else including those not signed up to Brexit.
If the whole stupid project turns out to be a mess the right wing press will of course not accept any blame for peddling the fantasy in the first place but just find another scapegoat to blame .
That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
Not just women. Prince Philip faced exactly the same problem. If you don’t like or want it then don’t bloody join. But if you do accept that that there are downsides to the privileges you get.
I question the claim that she was not accepted. She was seen as a breath of fresh air. Invited to Sandringham after the engagement. Harry was given a role with the Commonwealth and Meghan made a great play of weaving that into her wedding dress. HMQ made a very public point of inviting her to to a joint engagement very early on, a privilege not granted to Kate or Fergie or Edward’s wife. She made well regarded speeches in the 3 overseas tours they made; she was given patronages which played to her strengths (the National Theatre, for instance).
Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.
Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.
And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
Sir Keir appears to be winning endorsements from CLPs that were Corbynite in 2015 and, in some cases, also in 2016. One wonders if this thing is even going to be close.
Still, Becky has the Ebenezer Goode vote to fall back on, could be all important if the race tightens!
Apparently Bozo will speak to the nation on Brexit day .
I can hardly wait !
He’ll be receiving the first commemorative Brexit coin . Which has some guff on it about peace and friendship to all ! Someone pass me the sick bag !
The one with the disingenuous misquote from Thomas Jefferson because Brexiteers can only allude to the dropped words about entangling alliances? That they have already had to recycle at least once.
...You would have thought that at some point some intelligent politician would notice that constitutional reform has caused the country little but grief since 1997 and it might be worth concentrating on other things...
At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.
Is that a thing generally?
I don't give a monkeys chuff for her or Harry, a pair of hypocritical freeloaders.
Fun to find a subject I agree with Malcom on!
One of the reasons Malc is one of our best-loved posters is that he doesn't fit into any neat little boxes, and he speaks his own mind rather than parroting whatever is the drivel of the day spouted by his current political lodestar. I think everyone on here strongly agrees with him on at least one issue, but the variety lies in which issue it happens to be!
I do wonder if we had a less strong party system, whether we'd discover more of our politicians also spent a lot of time secretly agreeing with their opponents about lots of things. There must even be times when we watch a Labour and Tory MP rip shreds out of each other on an issue where privately they both disagree with the position their party leadership has taken and they'd actually each feel more comfortable defending the opposing position...
All the best to you and your wife @malcolmg if you catch this. Floreat Brassica!
Comments
I also asked you 5 months ago, who from county cricket is coming to fill the holes Englands batting line up, and you said Sibley and Crawley. Those two, and the young pope are doing okay.
Labuschagne Ripping it up for Aussies. Another stand out from 2019 county cricket, Glamorgan not the same without him.
Hence why the concept of a royal family is oppressive (to its members), and fucking bonkers.
It’s no life at all, and those born into it have virtually no choice but to endure it.
But it’s still a huge shame he won’t play in the final test.
Plus, for the bowling - Ed Barnard.
If Phillips and Thornberry are eliminated before the final ballot, she'll be in a three horse race with RLB and Starmer. If they both underwhelm in the hustings, and she does well, people may well take notice of her. And the fact far fewer Labour members know about her than either Phillips or Thornberry, means she has more potential than them to grow her support.
But, yes, anyone other than those in the direct line of succession should get no titles, royal status, public money and be treated as normal individuals. Belatedly it seems as if they’re getting it - with the slimmed down monarchy idea. If this affair pushes that forward so much the better. The Swedish RF did something similar recently.
I can hardly wait !
He’ll be receiving the first commemorative Brexit coin . Which has some guff on it about peace and friendship to all ! Someone pass me the sick bag !
Then we had the Andrew interview. And I thought, the problem with the genetic lottery system is we're constantly at risk of getting a King Andrew.
Is Ed Barnard quick enough for test cricket? England selectors tend to prefer that extra pace for test match tracks? If you had to pick England bowler simply on extra yard of pace than their uncapped peers who would you go for?
I certainly would not trust any of our current crop of politicians to come up with anything other than a dog’s breakfast if they tried to come up with a republican alternative, much like the mess they have made of everything else they’ve touched.
https://twitter.com/clpnominations/status/1218300750008397824?s=21
No system is perfect. But before you get rid of one system you really have to have a well thought out plan for what you replace it with.
Much like, say, to pick something at random, Brexit ......
**...decides it’s time to run off to bed ....**
Time for bed.
But what we’re seeing now is just a foretaste of what’s to come , even with Leavers fully in charge they’ll still be blaming everyone else including those not signed up to Brexit.
If the whole stupid project turns out to be a mess the right wing press will of course not accept any blame for peddling the fantasy in the first place but just find another scapegoat to blame .
@rottenborough
That link states that he only has 7, although he has 10.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/01/which-clps-are-nominating-who-2020-labour-leadership-race
Still, Becky has the Ebenezer Goode vote to fall back on, could be all important if the race tightens!
What are people doing for Brexit Day?
I do wonder if we had a less strong party system, whether we'd discover more of our politicians also spent a lot of time secretly agreeing with their opponents about lots of things. There must even be times when we watch a Labour and Tory MP rip shreds out of each other on an issue where privately they both disagree with the position their party leadership has taken and they'd actually each feel more comfortable defending the opposing position...
All the best to you and your wife @malcolmg if you catch this. Floreat Brassica!
I am recuperating for a fortnight, and it seems to have been replaced by a gang show with 10 Freddy Flintoffs shouting at each other.
What happened?