As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
99% of people in uk will not earn that a year let alone have it as a pay rise
When they come to write the history of the 21st century, and the decline of the west, the monetisation of charities, in this fashion, will be a significant factor. It is outright corruption. leftwing style. All the people in charge give each other vast salaries, and all agree that this is acceptable and correct. Job done.
They forget that this shit undermines public confidence in "giving" and "aid" and makes everyone more cynical
eg Miliband there complains about the UK government dropping back from our aid to Yemen, after giving £50m.
Well, frankly, David, why don't you make up some of the aid PERSONALLY, from your million dollar salary? Why don't you give half of it to Yemen every year? In what universe does anyone, working for a charity, require $900,000 dollars a year to lead a decent and pleasurable life, even in New York City?
David Miliband is earning $4,200 dollars A DAY, $21,000 a WEEK. He earns not far off the UK average annual salary, every week
You want crazy.
In the US, marketing organisations go to candidates in districts they won't win. Let us run your fund raising campaign with no cost to yoi, they say, and we'll take 70% (or sometimes even 80% or more).
So someone who donates to J Bloggs, Tennessee 12th, might be giving 80% to a random marketing company, with only 20% ending up with the campaign.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
I know people that get all wet thinking about trams.
Weird, but true.
And has Leon ever been to San Francisco? Where the cable cars are a civic AND a national legend?
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
I know people that get all wet thinking about trams.
Weird, but true.
And has Leon ever been to San Francisco? Where the cable cars are a civic AND a national legend?
A Streetcar Named Desire! NOLA?
Yours truly has chachkies commemorating both SF cable cars and NOLA Streetcar Named Desire. Ditto the Mayflower, the America (namesake & 1st winner of America's Cup), Air Force One & Starship Enterprise PLUS the police call box used for transport by Dr. Who.
Obviously none of us know what goes on behind the scenes, but if what they say about the time around their wedding is true, they did a bloody good job of hiding it. They did a lot of meet and greets with the public in Windsor the day before and on the day itself (which was absolutely perfect) they all looked really happy.
Appearances can be deceiving, but there was no Diana at the Taj Mahal moment.
Obviously none of us know what goes on behind the scenes, but if what they say about the time around their wedding is true, they did a bloody good job of hiding it. They did a lot of meet and greets with the public in Windsor the day before and on the day itself (which was absolutely perfect) they all looked really happy.
Appearances can be deceiving, but there was no Diana at the Taj Mahal moment.
Here is a full list of the people who come out well in the H&M vs HM saga:
Apparently, they target Western influencers, journalists, politicians etc*., by spending money on Facebook, etc., to disseminate (mostly untrue) news stories at publications they control.
In this way, they can persuade people about the safety of vaccines in general, or about the efficacy of a particular vaccine, etc.
* So, the way it works is that if you know enough about a person you are tagrgeting, you can use Facebook/Google to essentially send your adverts to one person. You might target 36 year olds, who live in this zip code, who have a degree in Mathematics and who recently got divorced. By piling on the targeting you get to essentially have an audience of one. And your target thinks it's just a newspaper doing general marketing on an interesting story.
Apparently, they target Western influencers, journalists, politicians etc., by spending money on Facebook, etc., to disseminate (mostly untrue) news stories at publications they control.
In this way, they can persuade people about the safety of vaccines in general, or about the efficacy of a particular vaccine, etc.
I wonder how they managed to recruit Emmanuel Macron.
Apparently, they target Western influencers, journalists, politicians etc., by spending money on Facebook, etc., to disseminate (mostly untrue) news stories at publications they control.
In this way, they can persuade people about the safety of vaccines in general, or about the efficacy of a particular vaccine, etc.
I wonder how they managed to recruit Emmanuel Macron.
I suspect they wouldn't have gone directly. They would target someone he listens to.
Apparently, they target Western influencers, journalists, politicians etc*., by spending money on Facebook, etc., to disseminate (mostly untrue) news stories at publications they control.
In this way, they can persuade people about the safety of vaccines in general, or about the efficacy of a particular vaccine, etc.
* So, the way it works is that if you know enough about a person you are tagrgeting, you can use Facebook/Google to essentially send your adverts to one person. You might target 36 year olds, who live in this zip code, who have a degree in Mathematics and who recently got divorced. By piling on the targeting you get to essentially have an audience of one. And your target thinks it's just a newspaper doing general marketing on an interesting story.
Apparently, they target Western influencers, journalists, politicians etc*., by spending money on Facebook, etc., to disseminate (mostly untrue) news stories at publications they control.
In this way, they can persuade people about the safety of vaccines in general, or about the efficacy of a particular vaccine, etc.
* So, the way it works is that if you know enough about a person you are tagrgeting, you can use Facebook/Google to essentially send your adverts to one person. You might target 36 year olds, who live in this zip code, who have a degree in Mathematics and who recently got divorced. By piling on the targeting you get to essentially have an audience of one. And your target thinks it's just a newspaper doing general marketing on an interesting story.
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Harry is a grandkid of the main line, not a great grandkid of the main line surely? Since Charles continues the main line doesn't he?
What level of spare were Beatrice and Eugenie when they got the title Princess? Seems weird Charles' grandkids wouldn't get the same title.
Why is the world paying attention to these publicity hungry narcissists? Please read my 172 post, 83 tweets and an 18 page spread in the Mail on this subject.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
BiB - or have the right to do. Princess Anne's kids don't have titles.
This is such an obvious piece of bollocks it’s quite hard not to consider this as a wholly unreliable witness testimony.
Without having watched it, why?
And why wouldn't Archie be a Prince but Eugenie and Beatrice are Princesses.
On the second one Grand Child vs Great Grandchild of the reigning monarch I would think. Plus something to do with main line of succession. Seems to be a clear distinction.
Interested why the children of Prince Edward are just Lady and Viscount.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
Good morning all. Still not exactly spring-like in this neck of the woods.
Assuming we have to have a monarchy, why should anyone except those in direct line of succession be described as Prince or whatever. Maybe too, the title should be removed when they move out of direct line...... for example Harry. Given that we have neither medieval physical intercine war, nor similar levels of incurable disease, the chances of Harry 9th are substantially lower than those of Ed Davey becoming PM.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
BiB - or have the right to do. Princess Anne's kids don't have titles.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
It’s simple protocol isn’t it. Hard to escape the feeling that Megan was sold a pup. Thought she was going to become a “fairytale” princess and her children would be automatically princes and princesses. But it doesn’t work like that.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
Apparently, they target Western influencers, journalists, politicians etc*., by spending money on Facebook, etc., to disseminate (mostly untrue) news stories at publications they control.
In this way, they can persuade people about the safety of vaccines in general, or about the efficacy of a particular vaccine, etc.
* So, the way it works is that if you know enough about a person you are tagrgeting, you can use Facebook/Google to essentially send your adverts to one person. You might target 36 year olds, who live in this zip code, who have a degree in Mathematics and who recently got divorced. By piling on the targeting you get to essentially have an audience of one. And your target thinks it's just a newspaper doing general marketing on an interesting story.
As Mr Glenn observed they’re just peeved because Oxford AZ had the French head of state lie about it, not some obscure academic journals....
It's both very clever behaviour by the Russians, and very dumb.
Russia isn't enrichened by the West being mired in CV19. If the French and German economies aren't humming, they aren't buying Russian gas.
(Of course, most of the shit they spread is about the dangers of fracking and the like.)
Krastev and Holmes analyse this behaviour by Russia in some detail in their brilliant book. They suggest that Russia isn’t doing it to advance its own interests and, indeed, probably knows that much of such activity is counter-productive. They look at it from a psychoanalytical point of view, and argue that Russia’s motives (strictly, those of its leader) are a counter-reaction to its loss of superpower status, and the reasons are two: a desire to still make a difference on the word stage, now that it can no longer do so directly through military or economic power, and a desire to hold a mirror up to what they see as US hypocrisy by both undermining and showing to be false the values of ‘ ‘liberal democracy’ behind which the US advanced its interests (including stuff like meddling in elections) during and immediately after the Cold War.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
Good morning all. Still not exactly spring-like in this neck of the woods.
Assuming we have to have a monarchy, why should anyone except those in direct line of succession be described as Prince or whatever. Maybe too, the title should be removed when they move out of direct line...... for example Harry. Given that we have neither medieval physical intercine war, nor similar levels of incurable disease, the chances of Harry 9th are substantially lower than those of Ed Davey becoming PM.
Yes, I think this is a good point. The Royal Family has expanded massively as people have lived longer - compared to say the 1960s / 1970s the only "central" people to drop out are the Queen Mother and Margaret whilst a whole army of people have been added with new people being born and growing up.
When Charles becomes King everyone in his generation should completely drop out (other than himself + his wife).
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
Agree illogical - but I suspect answer is No as subsequent children can't trump the 1st child.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
Whether you think it logical is neither here nor there. There’s not much logical about inherited titles and sovereignty to begin with. The point is, Megan slandered the Queen (because it is she who counts in these decisions) by saying her child is not a prince because he is “too brown”. And she knows that much less than sue her, the Queen won’t even be able to answer back.
With this one anecdote alone Meg has shown herself to be an unreliable witness and either deeply manipulative or totally detached from reality.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
Whether you think it logical is neither here nor there. There’s not much logical about inherited titles and sovereignty to begin with. The point is, Megan slandered the Queen (because it is she who counts in these decisions) by saying her child is not a prince because he is “too brown”. And she knows that much less than sue her, the Queen won’t even be able to answer back.
With this one anecdote alone Meg has shown herself to be an unreliable witness and either deeply manipulative or totally detached from reality.
Interesting recent average polling from a range of companies in Spain:
PSOE [Centre Left] 27% PP [Centre Right] 22% UP [Extreme Left] 11% Vox [Extreme Right] 19% C [Liberals] 5%
The key trend is the rise of Vox at the expense of Citizens and the steady fall away of UP. I think in many ways it is a worrying situation.
It reflects a flight to the extremes and a crisis for liberal and social democratic politics that is playing out across the world. If one wanted to be hyperbolic there are previous periods of history that have seen similar.
Which is why those PB’ers who sometimes put Labour’s problems down to Starmer being too woke or somesuch, are seeking to bang their own drum in ignorance of the bigger picture.
The hope must be that, from the post-pandemic world, the centre-left somewhere finds a new vision and purpose.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
Good morning all. Still not exactly spring-like in this neck of the woods.
Assuming we have to have a monarchy, why should anyone except those in direct line of succession be described as Prince or whatever. Maybe too, the title should be removed when they move out of direct line...... for example Harry. Given that we have neither medieval physical intercine war, nor similar levels of incurable disease, the chances of Harry 9th are substantially lower than those of Ed Davey becoming PM.
Yes, I think this is a good point. The Royal Family has expanded massively as people have lived longer - compared to say the 1960s / 1970s the only "central" people to drop out are the Queen Mother and Margaret whilst a whole army of people have been added with new people being born and growing up.
When Charles becomes King everyone in his generation should completely drop out (other than himself + his wife).
'Everyone in his generation' presumably includes their descendants? Eugenie etc?
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
Whether you think it logical is neither here nor there. There’s not much logical about inherited titles and sovereignty to begin with. The point is, Megan slandered the Queen (because it is she who counts in these decisions) by saying her child is not a prince because he is “too brown”. And she knows that much less than sue her, the Queen won’t even be able to answer back.
With this one anecdote alone Meg has shown herself to be an unreliable witness and either deeply manipulative or totally detached from reality.
Nice spin.
It’s not spin. I don’t care much for the royals as I said yesterday. I hope Andrew faces the proper consequences. I wouldn’t care less if they called it a day after the Queen dies. Equally I don’t really care if it buggers on long after me. I can just spot a blatant lie when I see one.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
They will *all* become Prince or a Princess if/when Charles inherits the throne, not before.
It’s very normal for titles to change in a lifetime depending on who is or isn’t alive.
Are we over this interview, and is anyone going to fact-check it? Colour me somewhat sceptical. This is obviously heavily spun.
Full of things that 'we don't want to talk about', that they are talking about enough to stir the pot and get the attention, but not enough to stand up the story or allow it to be answered. Slebs'r'us.
'I want to reconcile with my father' (after tipping a bucket of ordure over him on international media.) Good luck with that. I'd say that bridge is quite thoroughly burnt.
'My driving license and passport were taken away.' - Precedent? Where has that happened previously.
'We were married 3 days before the ceremony.' - Not possible in law aiui.
Conversations about 'Archie will not be given a title.' - Yes he will, but not "Prince".
F1: a few testing thoughts, before I attempt to be a productive member of society and get some work done:
Tyres. Reasonably sure these change this year (we'll find out if that was delayed due to the pestilence). Could alter things quite a bit... or not much. But it's a variable. Whether it'll make things different will become apparent in testing, but how much can only be ascertained in an actual race.
Sprint races. Three are planned, with half points (roughly) compared to a proper race. If you're betting on points tallies this will affect things as there's about one and a half more races (in points terms) than the 23 race calendar indicates.
Short turn around from testing to race one. That doesn't mean any ropey reliability is unfixable from A to B, just that it's more difficult. As usual, testing can reveal weakness in reliability but is largely worthless for using lap times to try and assess real pace. Mood music counts more.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
Whether you think it logical is neither here nor there. There’s not much logical about inherited titles and sovereignty to begin with. The point is, Megan slandered the Queen (because it is she who counts in these decisions) by saying her child is not a prince because he is “too brown”. And she knows that much less than sue her, the Queen won’t even be able to answer back.
With this one anecdote alone Meg has shown herself to be an unreliable witness and either deeply manipulative or totally detached from reality.
Archie does have a title “Earl of Dumbarton” and when asked about Archie’s skin colour discussion Harry said it happened before they were married NOT during the pregnancy as Meghan had said. Royal protection is a matter for the government and the Met - not the royal family.
Regarding the succession. William's children should not be allowed to travel together if the aim is to ensure that Harry never becomes king, and I am sure that is what is planned....especially after such disloyalty.
An interesting thing seems to be that in this country we tend to just about put up with eccentrics like Piers Corbyn and David Icke, while correctly ignoring their eccentric agenda. In other places it almost seems to be the other way round: they don't particularly like eccentric characters as people, but they're surprisingly open to eccentric messages, such as being sceptical about the AZ vaccine.
As far as flu is concerned it wouldn't surprise me if next year and the next few years we actually have a much milder flu season than pre-Covid years, not a tougher one.
Three reasons.
Sadly some who would have succumbed to future flu seasons are already dead.
Future vaccines could be better and have better take up as a result of this past year.
Masks may voluntarily be brought back out by some people for winter which would reduce the risk of flu.
There is, though, one serious factor against the first one. Covid has turned a lot of people who had no significant underlying conditions into people with underlying conditions. My mother survived covid last year. We have found out that it left her with both chronic kidney disease and heart failure (both of them currently manageable, but both increase her vulnerability). A considerable amount of covid survivors (especially in the hundreds of thousands of hospitalised ones) will be in the same category.
Historically of course, IIRC, it was the elder son who was the trouble maker! Not the 'spare'.
Ydoethur won't be around to put me right, of course; he'll actually be in school this morning. No 2 Grandson, in what I still call the Upper VIth, is not looking forward to, but prepared to put up with, testing.
The interesting thing is that in this country we tend to just about put up with eccentrics like Piers Corbyn and David Icke while correctly ignoring their eccentric agenda. In other places it almost seems to be the other way round: they don't particularly like eccentric characters as people, but they're surprisingly open to eccentric messages such as being sceptical about the AZ vaccine.
Scepticism about the AZ vaccine was hardly eccentric if it was led by your Chancellor or President together with your country's health and drug regulation agencies. Perhaps if Oxford/AZ had not ballsed up the trials, things might have been different.
Archie does have a title “Earl of Dumbarton” and when asked about Archie’s skin colour discussion Harry said it happened before they were married NOT during the pregnancy as Meghan had said. Royal protection is a matter for the government and the Met - not the royal family.
And, presumably, he'll be Duke of Sussex in due course. Meghan Markle is not popular in the UK, and I suspect this interview won't do anything to alter that fact.
As far as flu is concerned it wouldn't surprise me if next year and the next few years we actually have a much milder flu season than pre-Covid years, not a tougher one.
Three reasons.
Sadly some who would have succumbed to future flu seasons are already dead.
Future vaccines could be better and have better take up as a result of this past year.
Masks may voluntarily be brought back out by some people for winter which would reduce the risk of flu.
There is, though, one serious factor against the first one. Covid has turned a lot of people who had no significant underlying conditions into people with underlying conditions. My mother survived covid last year. We have found out that it left her with both chronic kidney disease and heart failure (both of them currently manageable, but both increase her vulnerability). A considerable amount of covid survivors (especially in the hundreds of thousands of hospitalised ones) will be in the same category.
Archie does have a title “Earl of Dumbarton” and when asked about Archie’s skin colour discussion Harry said it happened before they were married NOT during the pregnancy as Meghan had said. Royal protection is a matter for the government and the Met - not the royal family.
And, presumably, he'll be Duke of Sussex in due course. Meghan Markle is not popular in the UK, and I suspect this interview won't do anything to alter that fact.
The interesting thing is that in this country we tend to just about put up with eccentrics like Piers Corbyn and David Icke while correctly ignoring their eccentric agenda. In other places it almost seems to be the other way round: they don't particularly like eccentric characters as people, but they're surprisingly open to eccentric messages such as being sceptical about the AZ vaccine.
Scepticism about the AZ vaccine was hardly eccentric if it was led by your Chancellor or President together with your country's health and drug regulation agencies. Perhaps if Oxford/AZ had not ballsed up the trials, things might have been different.
Yes it’s Oxford and AstraZeneca’s fault isn’t it, for inventing a highly efficacious, cheap and easy to deliver vaccine in record time. That they are providing at cost.
I think the difference is The Queen was still alive when Archie was born.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Euginie. But that's not the case!
True but Queenie is still alive and George does have the title doesn't he? So they are looking ahead down the line for some of Charles' grandkids to get that far, but left out Charles' grandkids down Harry's sides? Despite grandkids from spare sides being Prince or Princess?
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
George had to be Prince as he will be King. See above re William's other kids.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
That's confusing. So it's position at birth? So if HMQ dies and Meghan has more kids then her youngest children would be Prince or Princess but their older siblings wouldn't be? That doesn't sound logical.
They will *all* become Prince or a Princess if/when Charles inherits the throne, not before.
It’s very normal for titles to change in a lifetime depending on who is or isn’t alive.
An interesting thing seems to be that in this country we tend to just about put up with eccentrics like Piers Corbyn and David Icke, while correctly ignoring their eccentric agenda. In other places it almost seems to be the other way round: they don't particularly like eccentric characters as people, but they're surprisingly open to eccentric messages, such as being sceptical about the AZ vaccine.
Here in Spain there is growing medical criticism of vaccinating 30 year old policeman with AZN while denying it to vulnerable over 65s. Nevertheless my Facebook feed still fills regularly with fears and concerns about its safety and efficacy. Utter madness.
This is such an obvious piece of bollocks it’s quite hard not to consider this as a wholly unreliable witness testimony.
Without having watched it, why?
And why wouldn't Archie be a Prince but Eugenie and Beatrice are Princesses.
Because of how far removed they are from the current monarch.
This whole thing makes me a Republican... But isn't Archie slightly closer to the throne than Eugenie or Beatrice ever were?
No. Beatrice was fifth in line when she was born. Archie is currently seventh in line. I guess that's because QE2 is still with us and William has three rather than two kids.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
The interesting thing is that in this country we tend to just about put up with eccentrics like Piers Corbyn and David Icke while correctly ignoring their eccentric agenda. In other places it almost seems to be the other way round: they don't particularly like eccentric characters as people, but they're surprisingly open to eccentric messages such as being sceptical about the AZ vaccine.
Scepticism about the AZ vaccine was hardly eccentric if it was led by your Chancellor or President together with your country's health and drug regulation agencies. Perhaps if Oxford/AZ had not ballsed up the trials, things might have been different.
Yes it’s Oxford and AstraZeneca’s fault isn’t it, for inventing a highly efficacious, cheap and easy to deliver vaccine in record time. That they are providing at cost.
Although they did have a rather noticeable 'balls-up' in the trials, as pointed out by Mr JL. Which meant the plaudits they deserved were more than they got. Sadly.
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
F1: a few testing thoughts, before I attempt to be a productive member of society and get some work done:
Tyres. Reasonably sure these change this year (we'll find out if that was delayed due to the pestilence). Could alter things quite a bit... or not much. But it's a variable. Whether it'll make things different will become apparent in testing, but how much can only be ascertained in an actual race.
Sprint races. Three are planned, with half points (roughly) compared to a proper race. If you're betting on points tallies this will affect things as there's about one and a half more races (in points terms) than the 23 race calendar indicates.
Short turn around from testing to race one. That doesn't mean any ropey reliability is unfixable from A to B, just that it's more difficult. As usual, testing can reveal weakness in reliability but is largely worthless for using lap times to try and assess real pace. Mood music counts more.
This is such an obvious piece of bollocks it’s quite hard not to consider this as a wholly unreliable witness testimony.
Without having watched it, why?
And why wouldn't Archie be a Prince but Eugenie and Beatrice are Princesses.
Because of how far removed they are from the current monarch.
This whole thing makes me a Republican... But isn't Archie slightly closer to the throne than Eugenie or Beatrice ever were?
No. Beatrice was fifth in line when she was born. Archie is currently seventh in line. I guess that's because QE2 is still with us and William has three rather than two kids.
The interesting thing is that in this country we tend to just about put up with eccentrics like Piers Corbyn and David Icke while correctly ignoring their eccentric agenda. In other places it almost seems to be the other way round: they don't particularly like eccentric characters as people, but they're surprisingly open to eccentric messages such as being sceptical about the AZ vaccine.
Scepticism about the AZ vaccine was hardly eccentric if it was led by your Chancellor or President together with your country's health and drug regulation agencies. Perhaps if Oxford/AZ had not ballsed up the trials, things might have been different.
Nonsense. The trials were known here in the UK as well. The EMA recommendation put no limits to their report. The fact is the remarks of the politicos were just that - pure politics of envy and spite in the face of the EU balls up and in defiance of their own health regulator. In the process they have done untold damage.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
No. Brexit was about the freedom to ban stuff.
Harrumph.
Now, if the Conservative government has been elected on a manifesto of banning fois gras, it would be one thing. But otherwise... Why?
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
If you want it, go to France.
I put it up there with bullfighting as an abnormal way to treat animals for the pleasure of the few who enjoy it.
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
Basically they spend the income from the endowment on overheads. Entitled prat.
That's an unsustainably high return on the endowment too. Probably top heavy with tech stocks and enjoying the bubble. What are they going to do when it starts to return a more normal $3-4m? Cut their salaries in half?
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
No. Brexit was about the freedom to ban stuff.
Harrumph.
Now, if the Conservative government has been elected on a manifesto of banning fois gras, it would be one thing. But otherwise... Why?
You mean you didn't see it? Page 325 paragraph 2b sub-section 5: 'Frogland measures'.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
It’s production in Britain has been banned on animal cruelty grounds for a decade and a half. Because we were in the EU we couldn’t ban its import. So all the U.K. production ban did was export animal cruelty. Just like California....
This is such an obvious piece of bollocks it’s quite hard not to consider this as a wholly unreliable witness testimony.
Without having watched it, why?
And why wouldn't Archie be a Prince but Eugenie and Beatrice are Princesses.
Because of how far removed they are from the current monarch.
This whole thing makes me a Republican... But isn't Archie slightly closer to the throne than Eugenie or Beatrice ever were?
No. Beatrice was fifth in line when she was born. Archie is currently seventh in line. I guess that's because QE2 is still with us and William has three rather than two kids.
He has three?
I guess I'm out of touch
Breed like rabbits, them royals.
Still, we aren't exactly like the House of Saud with 15,000 members. Although if that would keep Meghan happy....
As far as flu is concerned it wouldn't surprise me if next year and the next few years we actually have a much milder flu season than pre-Covid years, not a tougher one.
Three reasons.
Sadly some who would have succumbed to future flu seasons are already dead.
Future vaccines could be better and have better take up as a result of this past year.
Masks may voluntarily be brought back out by some people for winter which would reduce the risk of flu.
There is, though, one serious factor against the first one. Covid has turned a lot of people who had no significant underlying conditions into people with underlying conditions. My mother survived covid last year. We have found out that it left her with both chronic kidney disease and heart failure (both of them currently manageable, but both increase her vulnerability). A considerable amount of covid survivors (especially in the hundreds of thousands of hospitalised ones) will be in the same category.
That sounds terrible. Sorry to hear that.
Thanks, Philip. Came as quite a nasty shock. It should be manageable, though; the doctors seem fairly unworried about it, but I do worry. It does put in to context the ongoing pressure on the NHS from lasting effects - this is going to have a hangover for decades.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
If you want it, go to France.
I put it up there with bullfighting as an abnormal way to treat animals for the pleasure of the few who enjoy it.
The entire animal foodstuffs industry involves the abnormal treatment of animals.
Now, you can argue that certain practices used to produce fois gras are beyond the pale, although to do that while justifying caged hens who live and die covered in the faeces of their neighbours requires a particularly twisted form of mentality.
But that is very different from simply banning the import of goose liver.
The interesting thing is that in this country we tend to just about put up with eccentrics like Piers Corbyn and David Icke while correctly ignoring their eccentric agenda. In other places it almost seems to be the other way round: they don't particularly like eccentric characters as people, but they're surprisingly open to eccentric messages such as being sceptical about the AZ vaccine.
Scepticism about the AZ vaccine was hardly eccentric if it was led by your Chancellor or President together with your country's health and drug regulation agencies. Perhaps if Oxford/AZ had not ballsed up the trials, things might have been different.
That's a fair point, and we're lucky that the AZN appears to have turned out to be highly effective (and, for me at least, no side effects so far after yesterday afternoon's jab). But had there not been the crisis and urgency, on any other prospective vaccine my guess is that AZN could well have been told to go back and run a proper trial.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
It is probably relatively rare for a reigning monarch to have great grand children. Victoria probably one of the few exceptions. It may of course become more normal in the future.
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
Basically they spend the income from the endowment on overheads. Entitled prat.
And I'm reading that going, "It's not as if money is fungible, is it? Oh, wait, that's one of the key purposes of money in the first place."
They could easily augment their donations with some of the income from endowments and it's not as if that's such an obsure concept that people won't instantly spot it. Indefensible, I agree.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
Some European stuff is effectively already banned - not explicitly, but because exporters have stopped supplying UK customers because of the extra cost and hassle.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
It’s production in Britain has been banned on animal cruelty grounds for a decade and a half. Because we were in the EU we couldn’t ban its import. So all the U.K. production ban did was export animal cruelty. Just like California....
Which was found to be unconstitutional in the state, thank goodness.
If you legislate against the import on the basis that someone else somewhere is doing something you don't like, then what's next: banning the import of things because the school leaving age from that country is 15?
It is probably relatively rare for a reigning monarch to have great grand children. Victoria probably one of the few exceptions. It may of course become more normal in the future.
What has brought that about is that rising life expectancy has tended to be accompanied by rising age of average motherhood, most markedly among the AB census groups.
I can't decide what was more predictable and predicted. The way the Harry-Meghan saga has ultimately played out over the last few years, or Donald Trump attempting to overturn US democracy.
Much of what has been said in this interview may well be true. I suspect a lot of it rather has elements of truth that have been somewhat misrepresented (and particularly for a US public who are predisposed to think the worse of the institution of the monarchy and lap up criticism of it). Some of it is deliberately conflating what goes on within the Royal Family and their treatment by the UK media. Some of it may just be false.
However i doubt anything that has been said in the interview is really surprising (by that i mean that it was said, not that it is the truth).
Unless anything is an outright lie, the Royal family can't very well respond easily to it. And if they stay silent then it will be assumed to be taken that what was said was all true. And no doubt the likes of Nicholas Witchell will be telling us what he thinks they think anyway.
Mr. Mark, sounds fun. They're pretty cool vehicles. Still a bit slow for F1, though...
Wifey was filming her Ferrari documentary. Took Brands Hatch over for the day. The place is noise limited to 100 decibels. The two red cars from the 50's ran at over 120. She SOMEHOW blagged three laps, running them at full speed for filming. (Well, as near full speed as the drivers dared - apparently they were phenomenally difficult for today's drivers to work.) They just screamed round the circuit, spewing out noise.
She got a text message from race control. Tentatively, she opened it, expecting to be closed down. It simply read. "THAT is bloody beautiful!"
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
It’s production in Britain has been banned on animal cruelty grounds for a decade and a half. Because we were in the EU we couldn’t ban its import. So all the U.K. production ban did was export animal cruelty. Just like California....
Which was found to be unconstitutional in the state, thank goodness.
If you legislate against the import on the basis that someone else somewhere is doing something you don't like, then what's next: banning the import of things because the school leaving age from that country is 15?
The product is illegal to manufacture in this country and has been illegal for fifteen years now.
Why should products its illegal to manufacture be allowed to be imported? That's illogical.
If you want the 2006 ban lifted then fair enough. Otherwise it shouldn't be circumvented via imports. Lifting the ban would be the solution to liberalise it, so why not argue for that?
As far as flu is concerned it wouldn't surprise me if next year and the next few years we actually have a much milder flu season than pre-Covid years, not a tougher one.
Three reasons.
Sadly some who would have succumbed to future flu seasons are already dead.
Future vaccines could be better and have better take up as a result of this past year.
Masks may voluntarily be brought back out by some people for winter which would reduce the risk of flu.
There is, though, one serious factor against the first one. Covid has turned a lot of people who had no significant underlying conditions into people with underlying conditions. My mother survived covid last year. We have found out that it left her with both chronic kidney disease and heart failure (both of them currently manageable, but both increase her vulnerability). A considerable amount of covid survivors (especially in the hundreds of thousands of hospitalised ones) will be in the same category.
That sounds terrible. Sorry to hear that.
Thanks, Philip. Came as quite a nasty shock. It should be manageable, though; the doctors seem fairly unworried about it, but I do worry. It does put in to context the ongoing pressure on the NHS from lasting effects - this is going to have a hangover for decades.
Sad news, sorry to hear it.
At the weekend there was an estimate that up to a million people might need some sort of ongoing care arising from having had the virus - so there won't be any cost savings for the NHS because for a few years there won't be quite so many older patients around. Likely the demand for NHS services will be higher, in addition to which we have an overhang in demand from a year's postponed treatment.
I've no goose in the fois gras debate but it seems illogical to ban it's production on animal cruelty grounds but allow it's import.
It surely should be legal or illegal?
We would not allow the production of an iPhone made in the UK by 15 year olds, because of child labour laws.
Yet we allow the import of iPhones made in China or Vietnam by 15 year olds.
We also don't allow the production of certain types of fur in the UK. Yet we allow their import.
The iPhone is legal to manufacture in this country. Fois gras is not.
I don't understand why fur should be imported if its illegal to manufacture either. With ivory there's a legacy issue so antiques manufactured before a particular date are allowed to be imported but then it was legal to have it until that date too. That would be logical for fur etc too. So any fois gras manufactured before 2006 could be imported but I'm not sure how tasty that would be.
Comments
In the US, marketing organisations go to candidates in districts they won't win. Let us run your fund raising campaign with no cost to yoi, they say, and we'll take 70% (or sometimes even 80% or more).
So someone who donates to J Bloggs, Tennessee 12th, might be giving 80% to a random marketing company, with only 20% ending up with the campaign.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/klacik-gop-campaign-donations/2021/03/02/76300fde-7077-11eb-85fa-e0ccb3660358_story.html
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1368766417286365188?s=20
Big decision now - will he come???
Personally, I'm playing Hitman 3.
Appearances can be deceiving, but there was no Diana at the Taj Mahal moment.
Paramount's Commissioning Editor
...
Errr...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-disinformation-campaign-aims-to-undermine-confidence-in-pfizer-other-covid-19-vaccines-u-s-officials-say-11615129200?mod=e2tw
Apparently, they target Western influencers, journalists, politicians etc*., by spending money on Facebook, etc., to disseminate (mostly untrue) news stories at publications they control.
In this way, they can persuade people about the safety of vaccines in general, or about the efficacy of a particular vaccine, etc.
* So, the way it works is that if you know enough about a person you are tagrgeting, you can use Facebook/Google to essentially send your adverts to one person. You might target 36 year olds, who live in this zip code, who have a degree in Mathematics and who recently got divorced. By piling on the targeting you get to essentially have an audience of one. And your target thinks it's just a newspaper doing general marketing on an interesting story.
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1368799154806349825?s=20
As Mr Glenn observed they’re just peeved because Oxford AZ had the French head of state lie about it, not some obscure academic journals....
Russia isn't enrichened by the West being mired in CV19. If the French and German economies aren't humming, they aren't buying Russian gas.
(Of course, most of the shit they spread is about the dangers of fracking and the like.)
The clouds lie low along the ridges
Ah sweet the air with curly smoke
From all my burning bridges
Dorothy Parker
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1368799924280778758?s=20
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1368568333944127490?s=20
This is such an obvious piece of bollocks it’s quite hard not to consider this as a wholly unreliable witness testimony.
And why wouldn't Archie be a Prince but Eugenie and Beatrice are Princesses.
PSOE [Centre Left] 27%
PP [Centre Right] 22%
UP [Extreme Left] 11%
Vox [Extreme Right] 19%
C [Liberals] 5%
The key trend is the rise of Vox at the expense of Citizens and the steady fall away of UP. I think in many ways it is a worrying situation.
What level of spare were Beatrice and Eugenie when they got the title Princess? Seems weird Charles' grandkids wouldn't get the same title.
If Charles was now King then Archie is in same position as Beatrice and Eugenie. But that's not the case!
Apparently the Queen amended the rules otherwise Charlotte and Louis (William's 2nd and 3rd kids) would not have been Princess and Prince.
Maybe there's a logical explanation but it's weird.
I agree it seems a bit odd but the situation is different - albeit the difference could be considered irrelevant because you could argue when the Queen dies is irrelevant to whether someone is called Prince for the whole of their life.
But the position is determined by situation at birth. If you are born a bit later then position can change!
Of course with Monarchs now living to great ages then situation will be more common - ie if Charlotte and Louis have kids before Charles dies they don't get titles - but if it's after Charles dies then they do.
Interested why the children of Prince Edward are just Lady and Viscount.
Assuming we have to have a monarchy, why should anyone except those in direct line of succession be described as Prince or whatever. Maybe too, the title should be removed when they move out of direct line...... for example Harry. Given that we have neither medieval physical intercine war, nor similar levels of incurable disease, the chances of Harry 9th are substantially lower than those of Ed Davey becoming PM.
Pretty momentous day. F1 apparently is having an Aston Martin safety car this year, alongside a Mercedes. They look pretty snazzy.
https://twitter.com/F1/status/1368713322883874820
When Charles becomes King everyone in his generation should completely drop out (other than himself + his wife).
With this one anecdote alone Meg has shown herself to be an unreliable witness and either deeply manipulative or totally detached from reality.
Which is why those PB’ers who sometimes put Labour’s problems down to Starmer being too woke or somesuch, are seeking to bang their own drum in ignorance of the bigger picture.
The hope must be that, from the post-pandemic world, the centre-left somewhere finds a new vision and purpose.
It’s very normal for titles to change in a lifetime depending on who is or isn’t alive.
Full of things that 'we don't want to talk about', that they are talking about enough to stir the pot and get the attention, but not enough to stand up the story or allow it to be answered. Slebs'r'us.
'I want to reconcile with my father' (after tipping a bucket of ordure over him on international media.) Good luck with that. I'd say that bridge is quite thoroughly burnt.
'My driving license and passport were taken away.' - Precedent? Where has that happened previously.
'We were married 3 days before the ceremony.' - Not possible in law aiui.
Conversations about 'Archie will not be given a title.' - Yes he will, but not "Prince".
Credibility ... maybe, but far less than very.
Tyres. Reasonably sure these change this year (we'll find out if that was delayed due to the pestilence). Could alter things quite a bit... or not much. But it's a variable. Whether it'll make things different will become apparent in testing, but how much can only be ascertained in an actual race.
Sprint races. Three are planned, with half points (roughly) compared to a proper race. If you're betting on points tallies this will affect things as there's about one and a half more races (in points terms) than the 23 race calendar indicates.
Short turn around from testing to race one. That doesn't mean any ropey reliability is unfixable from A to B, just that it's more difficult. As usual, testing can reveal weakness in reliability but is largely worthless for using lap times to try and assess real pace. Mood music counts more.
Covid has turned a lot of people who had no significant underlying conditions into people with underlying conditions.
My mother survived covid last year. We have found out that it left her with both chronic kidney disease and heart failure (both of them currently manageable, but both increase her vulnerability).
A considerable amount of covid survivors (especially in the hundreds of thousands of hospitalised ones) will be in the same category.
Ydoethur won't be around to put me right, of course; he'll actually be in school this morning. No 2 Grandson, in what I still call the Upper VIth, is not looking forward to, but prepared to put up with, testing.
Unless we can bet on it! Are there any markets arising from the interview?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foie-gras-will-be-off-the-menu-after-british-import-ban-xfh7qn57p
I love fois gras.
If the government uses, as the article suggests, Brexit as an excuse to ban fois gras then I am now a Europhile. Brexit was about freedom, not banning stuff.
Sadly.
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1368720503624630274
AIUI only the grand children of the monarch are automatically prince or princesses. Archie is a great grandchild.
Meghan claimed the “first member of colour of the family” was not being titled and the convention was actively being changed to work against Archie
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-08/harry-and-meghan-loaded-up-a-plane-and-dropped-bomb-after-heavy-bomb-on-buckingham-palace-in-their-oprah-interview
I guess I'm out of touch
Now, if the Conservative government has been elected on a manifesto of banning fois gras, it would be one thing. But otherwise... Why?
I put it up there with bullfighting as an abnormal way to treat animals for the pleasure of the few who enjoy it.
Still, we aren't exactly like the House of Saud with 15,000 members. Although if that would keep Meghan happy....
Came as quite a nasty shock. It should be manageable, though; the doctors seem fairly unworried about it, but I do worry.
It does put in to context the ongoing pressure on the NHS from lasting effects - this is going to have a hangover for decades.
Now, you can argue that certain practices used to produce fois gras are beyond the pale, although to do that while justifying caged hens who live and die covered in the faeces of their neighbours requires a particularly twisted form of mentality.
But that is very different from simply banning the import of goose liver.
It surely should be legal or illegal?
https://la.eater.com/2020/7/14/21324905/foie-gras-ban-california-lifted-not-illegal-ruling
They could easily augment their donations with some of the income from endowments and it's not as if that's such an obsure concept that people won't instantly spot it.
Indefensible, I agree.
If you legislate against the import on the basis that someone else somewhere is doing something you don't like, then what's next: banning the import of things because the school leaving age from that country is 15?
Much of what has been said in this interview may well be true. I suspect a lot of it rather has elements of truth that have been somewhat misrepresented (and particularly for a US public who are predisposed to think the worse of the institution of the monarchy and lap up criticism of it). Some of it is deliberately conflating what goes on within the Royal Family and their treatment by the UK media. Some of it may just be false.
However i doubt anything that has been said in the interview is really surprising (by that i mean that it was said, not that it is the truth).
Unless anything is an outright lie, the Royal family can't very well respond easily to it. And if they stay silent then it will be assumed to be taken that what was said was all true. And no doubt the likes of Nicholas Witchell will be telling us what he thinks they think anyway.
Yet we allow the import of iPhones made in China or Vietnam by 15 year olds.
We also don't allow the production of certain types of fur in the UK. Yet we allow their import.
She got a text message from race control. Tentatively, she opened it, expecting to be closed down. It simply read. "THAT is bloody beautiful!"
Why should products its illegal to manufacture be allowed to be imported? That's illogical.
If you want the 2006 ban lifted then fair enough. Otherwise it shouldn't be circumvented via imports. Lifting the ban would be the solution to liberalise it, so why not argue for that?
At the weekend there was an estimate that up to a million people might need some sort of ongoing care arising from having had the virus - so there won't be any cost savings for the NHS because for a few years there won't be quite so many older patients around. Likely the demand for NHS services will be higher, in addition to which we have an overhang in demand from a year's postponed treatment.
I don't understand why fur should be imported if its illegal to manufacture either. With ivory there's a legacy issue so antiques manufactured before a particular date are allowed to be imported but then it was legal to have it until that date too. That would be logical for fur etc too. So any fois gras manufactured before 2006 could be imported but I'm not sure how tasty that would be.