With 7 weeks to go before Scotland votes the latest three polls find voters opposed to another IndyR

System

With 7 weeks to go before Scotland votes the latest three polls find voters opposed to another IndyRef – politicalbetting.com

The Wikipedia table shows the last few months of polling in Scotland on having another IndyRef similar to the one that voted NO in September 2014. For more than a year all the polls showed a desire for a fresh vote until the past two weeks.

Read the full story here

TimT

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

TheScreamingEagles

Should be fun.

Omnium

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

All seems very small world TimT when the thread is about the grand world of Scottish politics!

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.

ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/

That would do it. Mental health is no joke, though more subtle people than Piers Morgan will find a way to criticise someone even if mental health issues have been raised, as is only fair.

TheScreamingEagles

I do one thing that does get overlooked is how difficult it is for a party to win a majority at Holyrood under the voting system, that the SNP don't fail to win a majority is seen as a failure.

kle4

On topic, nice to see, hope it becomes a trend.

Not sure about that majority being 'touch and go' even now though.

DougSeal

https://twitter.com/HaggardHawks/status/1369068393291210754

TheScreamingEagles

FPT

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

eek

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

Gallowgate

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

FPT

May I ask why? Is the audit trail not good enough? I must admit I don't know much about unexplained wealth orders and AMLs.

TheScreamingEagles

Regarding the latest Savanta ComRes poll

https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1369343425527549955

TimT

Omnium said:

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

All seems very small world TimT when the thread is about the grand world of Scottish politics!

I steer clear of commenting on Scottish politics, although I do ask the occasional question. It is alien to me, and I'd rather read what the likes of malcolm and uniondivvie have to say.

kle4

DougSeal said:

https://twitter.com/HaggardHawks/status/1369068393291210754

But people not getting it (or mistaking it ourselves) is half the fun.

Fairliered

A word of caution about the ComRes poll. It wasn’t weighted for turnout.

Gallowgate

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

ydoethur

Let us assume, hypothetically, that the SNP and Greens fall short of a majority.

Let us also assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption - that the SNP remain the largest party.

What sort of government could be formed?

In Wales, I’m confident it will be Labour/Plaid because anything else is mathematically out of the question. But would Labour agree to a coalition with the SNP if (a) the referendum request was ditched and (b) Sturgeon quit to be replaced by somebody else?

Anabobazina

FPT

We are in serious danger of Susanna Reid becoming the next Sir Keir.

She is Susanna. She is not Susannah.

MaxPB

That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again if the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.

Anabobazina

DougSeal said:

https://twitter.com/HaggardHawks/status/1369068393291210754

AKA the dog’s dick, I’m told.

kle4

WhisperingOracle said:

TimT said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from Tom Newton Dunn

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1369346477529706508?s=19

That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.

I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

The statement is saying that they are 'much loved', not that they are angry with them ( I doubt this is universally true of the royal family's response ) , and that "issues", the modern way of saying a major or divisive social concern, are "concerning". The fact that there's also enough qualification in there to satisfy conservatives that royal dignity is protected, is part of the quality of the statement, but that doesn't make it hostile.

There's hostile and then there's hostile.

The statement definitely does not accept the accusations made as unqualified truth, and plenty of people treat that sort of thing as being hostile in itself, not believing a 'victim' for instance, downplaying what is going on etc. People are always on the hunt with that sort of thing with half apologies, and that it isn't an apology means it is hostile to Harry and Meghan, despite not being aggressive or mean.

BluestBlue

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

Yes, @Northern_Al seems to require open vituperation of the sort so masterfully demonstrated in the 16th-century correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV and his self-exiled courtier Prince Kurbsky. But there's no need for that kind of unsubtle display here: we're British.

Omnium

TimT said:

Omnium said:

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

All seems very small world TimT when the thread is about the grand world of Scottish politics!

I steer clear of commenting on Scottish politics, although I do ask the occasional question. It is alien to me, and I'd rather read what the likes of malcolm and uniondivvie have to say.

Not so alien.

The fascinating thing is the tricky business of restating a virtually medieval nation (as last it was when it stood alone) in 21st century clothing. I really do think it's a wonderful project, although I hope that it doesn't actually happen.

williamglenn

MaxPB said:

That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again of the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.

The EU waiving the immunity of the Catalan separatists who are being prosecuted by Madrid won't help the momentum of the pro-EU independence case.

https://twitter.com/France24_en/status/1369275527828226049

NickPalmer

To be pedantic, the actual question is whether Scotland should be independent rather than whether there should be another indyref. As a non-Scot I'm mildly in favour of allowing it in the coming decade - I don't think it can be put off indefinitely. But I'd hope the result will be "No". There will no doubt be others like me (and maybe some the reverse, who don't want a divisive new Indyref but would vote Yes if there is). So all one can really say is that opinion on independence itself is now narrowly against.

ydoethur

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again of the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.

The EU waiving the immunity of the Catalan separatists who are being prosecuted by Madrid won't help the momentum of the pro-EU independence case.

https://twitter.com/France24_en/status/1369275527828226049

Does that have any practical effect as long as the three of them stay away from Spain?

Andy_JS

As usual, what this whole saga means is that we're talking about the rich and privileged, instead of the problems of ordinary people.

MaxPB

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again of the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.

The EU waiving the immunity of the Catalan separatists who are being prosecuted by Madrid won't help the momentum of the pro-EU independence case.

https://twitter.com/France24_en/status/1369275527828226049

Does that have any practical effect as long as the three of them stay away from Spain?

Can be extradited under the EAW now, surely?

Black_Rook

ydoethur said:

Let us assume, hypothetically, that the SNP and Greens fall short of a majority.

Let us also assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption - that the SNP remain the largest party.

What sort of government could be formed?

In Wales, I’m confident it will be Labour/Plaid because anything else is mathematically out of the question. But would Labour agree to a coalition with the SNP if (a) the referendum request was ditched and (b) Sturgeon quit to be replaced by somebody else?

Under those circumstances, an SNP minority administration under a new leader. But there's no realistic prospect of a Unionist majority so the question is moot.

TimT

OK. PB has once again taught me about something I did not know I did not know, NFTs. I can now explain them to a certain extent, but really do not understand them.

kle4

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again of the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.

The EU waiving the immunity of the Catalan separatists who are being prosecuted by Madrid won't help the momentum of the pro-EU independence case.

https://twitter.com/France24_en/status/1369275527828226049

Hard to see what the endgame is here. The seperatists don't seem to have enough support to force their own outcome, but are still popular enough that they won the latest election (albeit on lower turnout) so presumably no one is happy.

TheScreamingEagles

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

FPT

May I ask why? Is the audit trail not good enough? I must admit I don't know much about unexplained wealth orders and AMLs.

With the era of CIFAS markers where the banks can blacklist you for at least six years (meaning you cannot open a bank account anywhere other than with prepays and the odd challenger bank and the latter will soon go) you really don't want to be in a position where the bank thinks something dodgy is going on.

It is almost guilty until proven innocent.

Here's some examples when CIFAS markers go wrong.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-8326065/Bank-customers-insist-theyre-victims-Kafkaesque-injustice.html

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-5357525/Cifas-fraud-marker-meant-left-not-employ-status.html

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-6367319/Can-open-new-bank-account-shut-fraud.html

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-8110077/Sky-billed-wrong-bank-account-placed-Cifas-fraud-marker-me.html

But in a wider context

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/nov/19/barclays-seized-all-my-savings-and-left-me-penniless

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/22/barclays-took-my-440000-customers-caught-up-banks-de-risking-money-laundering-laws

In short the audit trail from cryptocurrencies and NFTs aren't robust enough for the regulations the financial services sector has to follow because they don't like sharing, it is often just the word of the customer, which isn't good enough.

And you're more fecked than a stepmom on pornhub if the Americans get involved with the one sided extradition treaty.

WhisperingOracle

kle4 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

TimT said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from Tom Newton Dunn

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1369346477529706508?s=19

That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.

I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

The statement is saying that they are 'much loved', not that they are angry with them ( I doubt this is universally true of the royal family's response ) , and that "issues", the modern way of saying a major or divisive social concern, are "concerning". The fact that there's also enough qualification in there to satisfy conservatives that royal dignity is protected, is part of the quality of the statement, but that doesn't make it hostile.

There's hostile and then there's hostile.

The statement definitely does not accept the accusations made as unqualified truth, and plenty of people treat that sort of thing as being hostile in itself, not believing a 'victim' for instance, downplaying what is going on etc. People are always on the hunt with that sort of thing with half apologies, and that it isn't an apology means it is hostile to Harry and Meghan, despite not being aggressive or mean.

The statement is a mix of something that could have been written in the 1940s, with something from the 2020s, without which you can't understand its message. Concerning "issues" that need to be addressed are the language of modern liberalism, and "the family will address it privately" belongs to the Queen's drawing-room in 1943. That's its principal message.

rcs1000

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

Philip_Thompson

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.

ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/

That would do it. Mental health is no joke, though more subtle people than Piers Morgan will find a way to criticise someone even if mental health issues have been raised, as is only fair.

Precisely. People all around have criticised Meghan and that is fair enough, but Morgan's response to the mental health claims specifically . . . that crossed a line others have swerved. Especially when his employer is running a mental health campaign at the minute.

eek

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

It's been fascinating to see how many Americans are invested in an anti-British monarchy position as part of their political identity.

Gallowgate

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

MaxPB

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

It's been fascinating to see how many Americans are invested in an anti-British monarchy position as part of their political identity.

Surely it's pro-Meghan than the other thing which I guess they don't care about too much. Meghan is American, after all.

TheScreamingEagles

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

ydoethur

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

It's been fascinating to see how many Americans are invested in an anti-British monarchy position as part of their political identity.

How else can they live with the shame of having had to rely on the French to become independent?

Whatever they were fleeing from had to be worse than just about the worst thing imaginable.

(I don’t know how to do it, so please just imagine the upside down exclamation mark.)

squareroot2

Piers Morgan leaving ITV

RochdalePioneers

Piers Morgan off to join Andrew Neil's right whinge TV?

MaxPB

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again of the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.

The EU waiving the immunity of the Catalan separatists who are being prosecuted by Madrid won't help the momentum of the pro-EU independence case.

https://twitter.com/France24_en/status/1369275527828226049

That seems like a real retrograde decision but I'm not sure it will change things particular for Scotland given we're out. It may make Scotland's accession impossible if they go down the UDI route though.

Omnium

NickPalmer said:

To be pedantic, the actual question is whether Scotland should be independent rather than whether there should be another indyref. As a non-Scot I'm mildly in favour of allowing it in the coming decade - I don't think it can be put off indefinitely. But I'd hope the result will be "No". There will no doubt be others like me (and maybe some the reverse, who don't want a divisive new Indyref but would vote Yes if there is). So all one can really say is that opinion on independence itself is now narrowly against.

Would you put a limit on the frequency of such polls?

Personally I'd have it as just one per parliament. Clearly a very low threshold, but one that I think is fair.

Gallowgate

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

RochdalePioneers

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.

ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/

That would do it. Mental health is no joke, though more subtle people than Piers Morgan will find a way to criticise someone even if mental health issues have been raised, as is only fair.

Precisely. People all around have criticised Meghan and that is fair enough, but Morgan's response to the mental health claims specifically . . . that crossed a line others have swerved. Especially when his employer is running a mental health campaign at the minute.

"Its all fake" says Moron.

Meanwhile with yet another of my friends going into anti-depressants I have to ask what the hell is wrong with the world where so many of us - myself included - find it so desperately hard to cope with.

MaxPB

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.

ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/

That would do it. Mental health is no joke, though more subtle people than Piers Morgan will find a way to criticise someone even if mental health issues have been raised, as is only fair.

Precisely. People all around have criticised Meghan and that is fair enough, but Morgan's response to the mental health claims specifically . . . that crossed a line others have swerved. Especially when his employer is running a mental health campaign at the minute.

"Its all fake" says Moron.

Meanwhile with yet another of my friends going into anti-depressants I have to ask what the hell is wrong with the world where so many of us - myself included - find it so desperately hard to cope with.

Lockdown mate. It's driving us all up the wall. The only thing keeping me going is that we have some kind of schedule for not being stuck in this.

williamglenn

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

It's been fascinating to see how many Americans are invested in an anti-British monarchy position as part of their political identity.

Surely it's pro-Meghan than the other thing which I guess they don't care about too much. Meghan is American, after all.

It's more than that. Many of them see the monarchy as synonymous with the British Empire, so obviously a bad thing and nothing like them, and interpret their foundational myth purely as a struggle against the tyrannical George III.

GIN1138

Mystic GIN strikes again (FPT)

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC

41,000 complaints to Ofcom re Piers Morgan comments today

I wonder whether Piers Morgan is about to go out in a "blaze of glory" moment on GMB and then join GB News?

Philip_Thompson

RochdalePioneers said:

Piers Morgan off to join Andrew Neil's right whinge TV?

I hope not, I was looking forward to that - but I'd rather watch Beth Rigby than Piers Moron and that says a lot.

Stocky

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

Best thing they can do is not comment. Treat it like a fart in public.

TheScreamingEagles

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

Not really, you'd need an independent valuer to appraise the value.

Drug money and terrorism funds have been sent through the banks using similar schemes like this.

Over at HSBC it was said the IRGC was using money to buy and sell overvalued properties and chattels across the world, money which was ultimately used to finance terrorism.

eek

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

You me and everyone else who isn't the originating artist able to get in on the scam.

I just don't get what the value of something that is visible and accessible at any time is - it's not like a physical picture you can hide from view or lend out - it's always going to be sat in multiple places online accessible to anyone who wants it.

And you don't even have the label against it saying owned be Eek.

ydoethur

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Piers Morgan off to join Andrew Neil's right whinge TV?

I hope not, I was looking forward to that - but I'd rather watch Beth Rigby than Piers Moron and that says a lot.

I’d rather have my balls hit repeatedly with a cricket bat while watching speeches from Jacob Rees Mogg on fish.

kle4

Stocky said:

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

Best thing they can do is not comment. Treat it like a fart in public.

Blame it on the least liked person present, got it.

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1369364187462393857?s=20

Stuartinromford

RochdalePioneers said:

Piers Morgan off to join Andrew Neil's right whinge TV?

Only an utter cynic would think that the fragrant Morgan would have engineered a high profile sacking for speaking his mind, before taking one last payday from Brillovision.

malcolmg

Black_Rook said:

ydoethur said:

Let us assume, hypothetically, that the SNP and Greens fall short of a majority.

Let us also assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption - that the SNP remain the largest party.

What sort of government could be formed?

In Wales, I’m confident it will be Labour/Plaid because anything else is mathematically out of the question. But would Labour agree to a coalition with the SNP if (a) the referendum request was ditched and (b) Sturgeon quit to be replaced by somebody else?

Under those circumstances, an SNP minority administration under a new leader. But there's no realistic prospect of a Unionist majority so the question is moot.

Depends on how list goes, if the new independence parties do well, voting SNP on list is almost a wasted vote, then it could well be a majority for sure. Lots of pissed of independence supporters and given 750K wasted 2nd votes last time it could make a huge impact.

Omnium

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.

ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/

That would do it. Mental health is no joke, though more subtle people than Piers Morgan will find a way to criticise someone even if mental health issues have been raised, as is only fair.

Precisely. People all around have criticised Meghan and that is fair enough, but Morgan's response to the mental health claims specifically . . . that crossed a line others have swerved. Especially when his employer is running a mental health campaign at the minute.

"Its all fake" says Moron.

Meanwhile with yet another of my friends going into anti-depressants I have to ask what the hell is wrong with the world where so many of us - myself included - find it so desperately hard to cope with.

It's a very human crisis. The world doesn't care. I care though for what little it's worth.

Gallowgate

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

You me and everyone else who isn't the originating artist able to get in on the scam.

I just don't get what the value of something that is visible and accessible at any time is - it's not like a physical picture you can hide from view or lend out - it's always going to be sat in multiple places online accessible to anyone who wants it.

And you don't even have the label against it saying owned be Eek.

I have seen *some* compelling use cases, at least at first look, such as weapons and collectables in video games and even as decentralised land registry.

Carnyx

Eh? Those are polls on voting in an indyref - not whether to have one as per title (which is a different matter with historically a different figure, for cvomplex reasons (esp if a specific time window is set).

Edit: I see NP got in ahead of me!

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1369364187462393857?s=20

I assume the EU rep has to enter round the back, unlike all the other ambassadors.

Theuniondivvie

Fairliered said:

A word of caution about the ComRes poll. It wasn’t weighted for turnout.

I think the tweet posted by TSE answers that question, though it doesn't clarify why BBC Scotland who had stated previously that they don't comment on individual polls spent all Sunday trumpeting this one via the medium of Sarah Smith's leaden tones.

The consistency of the last year's indy polling is interesting, far more so than say Brexit polling before the referendum I think. On that basis it would be worrying if subsequent polling was consistently in favour of No. I still think the fundamentals are there, ie BJ, Brexit and anyone below 60 being invariably in favour of indy. SLab lumbering into unpersoning anyone who has suggested that there should be a referendum if Scots vote for it isn't going to help them in May, Monica may need to face a People's Tribunal on some of her previous statements.

ydoethur

Just to remind* everyone what a complete arse Morgan is:
https://youtu.be/N6TcgfjcOPU
*I’m assuming nobody needs reminding as most people on here are very bright, but the clip is funny anyway.

Carnyx

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

To be pedantic, the actual question is whether Scotland should be independent rather than whether there should be another indyref. As a non-Scot I'm mildly in favour of allowing it in the coming decade - I don't think it can be put off indefinitely. But I'd hope the result will be "No". There will no doubt be others like me (and maybe some the reverse, who don't want a divisive new Indyref but would vote Yes if there is). So all one can really say is that opinion on independence itself is now narrowly against.

Would you put a limit on the frequency of such polls?

Personally I'd have it as just one per parliament. Clearly a very low threshold, but one that I think is fair.

Which parliament?

Omnium

Carnyx said:

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

To be pedantic, the actual question is whether Scotland should be independent rather than whether there should be another indyref. As a non-Scot I'm mildly in favour of allowing it in the coming decade - I don't think it can be put off indefinitely. But I'd hope the result will be "No". There will no doubt be others like me (and maybe some the reverse, who don't want a divisive new Indyref but would vote Yes if there is). So all one can really say is that opinion on independence itself is now narrowly against.

Would you put a limit on the frequency of such polls?

Personally I'd have it as just one per parliament. Clearly a very low threshold, but one that I think is fair.

Which parliament?

Westminster

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

So they don't have an export ban. Glad we cleared that up.

noneoftheabove

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

CGT an issue the crypto rich and traders will fall foul of as well.

Malmesbury

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1369364187462393857?s=20

I assume the EU rep has to enter round the back, unlike all the other ambassadors.

If it was me, an interview with no coffee. And no chair.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do one thing that does get overlooked is how difficult it is for a party to win a majority at Holyrood under the voting system, that the SNP don't fail to win a majority is seen as a failure.

Excellent point. SLAB and IIRC the LDs fiddled the d'Hondt system to achieve precisely that aim.

kle4

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

'Tantamount to' and 'de facto' are an admission the statement was false in what it unquivocally claimed.

But it doesn't matter. The demonisation of AZ and the UK has been successful. But it is still depressing that the EU and its Commission so quickly descended to gutter politics and briefing, the sort of thing they used to be able to criticise in others.

noneoftheabove

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

So they don't have an export ban. Glad we cleared that up.

Neither did the EU, but it didnt stop 99% of this board stating they had a few weeks ago.

kle4

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do one thing that does get overlooked is how difficult it is for a party to win a majority at Holyrood under the voting system, that the SNP don't fail to win a majority is seen as a failure.

Excellent point. SLAB and IIRC the LDs fiddled the d'Hondt system to achieve precisely that aim.

Couldn't even manage that effectively. Only thing worse than fiddling things is incompetent fiddling.

Carnyx

Omnium said:

Carnyx said:

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

To be pedantic, the actual question is whether Scotland should be independent rather than whether there should be another indyref. As a non-Scot I'm mildly in favour of allowing it in the coming decade - I don't think it can be put off indefinitely. But I'd hope the result will be "No". There will no doubt be others like me (and maybe some the reverse, who don't want a divisive new Indyref but would vote Yes if there is). So all one can really say is that opinion on independence itself is now narrowly against.

Would you put a limit on the frequency of such polls?

Personally I'd have it as just one per parliament. Clearly a very low threshold, but one that I think is fair.

Which parliament?

Westminster

Thank you!

ydoethur

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

You know, I would like to think that at some point one of the brighter national leaders will tell the Commission to SHUT THE FUCK UP rather than keep drawing attention to their ineptitude in negotiating contracts and the abject failure of their vaccination strategy.

RobD

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

So they don't have an export ban. Glad we cleared that up.

Neither did the EU, but it didnt stop 99% of this board stating they had a few weeks ago.

Tell that to Australia, lol.

alex_

MaxPB said:

That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again if the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.

It seems to me that the SNP have a problem. I'm sure they really don't want an Independence referendum that they might lose. That really would kill the whole issue dead. But i'm not even sure that they want a referendum that they win extremely narrowly. Brexit has adequately revealed the problems with a very narrow victory. They must have been hoping that post Brexit etc they would be starting from a position of 55%+.

But can they avoid a referendum? Are they hoping that Johnson miscalculates and bails them out? Or at least creates the circumstances where a cackhanded response creates a decisive shift in public opinion?

MattW

Anabobazina said:

FPT

We are in serious danger of Susanna Reid becoming the next Sir Keir.

She is Susanna. She is not Susannah.

It's Pete Seeger time. To help you remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVPZ4-gsSiY

Philip_Thompson

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

So they don't have an export ban. Glad we cleared that up.

Neither did the EU, but it didnt stop 99% of this board stating they had a few weeks ago.

Tell the Australians that. 🙄

Black_Rook

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.

ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/

That would do it. Mental health is no joke, though more subtle people than Piers Morgan will find a way to criticise someone even if mental health issues have been raised, as is only fair.

Precisely. People all around have criticised Meghan and that is fair enough, but Morgan's response to the mental health claims specifically . . . that crossed a line others have swerved. Especially when his employer is running a mental health campaign at the minute.

"Its all fake" says Moron.

Meanwhile with yet another of my friends going into anti-depressants I have to ask what the hell is wrong with the world where so many of us - myself included - find it so desperately hard to cope with.

Lockdown mate. It's driving us all up the wall. The only thing keeping me going is that we have some kind of schedule for not being stuck in this.

Very true. Just these last few weeks I've been through cautious optimism, a bit of a meltdown when the scare about the South African plague happened, and back to feeling really quite optimistic again. It's been a rollercoaster and not a particularly fun one. It's simply the fact that the end is in sight, and I have a degree of confidence that it's not all going to go to shit, that's keeping me going now. If I thought we had a year, or two years, or God alone knows how long of perma-lockdown still to go then it would be a very different matter.

Carnyx

kle4 said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do one thing that does get overlooked is how difficult it is for a party to win a majority at Holyrood under the voting system, that the SNP don't fail to win a majority is seen as a failure.

Excellent point. SLAB and IIRC the LDs fiddled the d'Hondt system to achieve precisely that aim.

Couldn't even manage that effectively. Only thing worse than fiddling things is incompetent fiddling.

It is a bizarre system, even more bizarre than the caucus race in Alice in Wondrland - the more votes you get the worse you do, certainly in seats per vote.

solarflare

Let's combine the two stories and pretend that it is critically important that Piers Morgan stands in the Holyrood election.

TheScreamingEagles

Bugger, one of my favourite one cap wonder has died, he played in the test where Devon Malcolm took 9-57.

https://twitter.com/TheCricketerMag/status/1369347408254091272

Malmesbury

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

Not really, you'd need an independent valuer to appraise the value.

Drug money and terrorism funds have been sent through the banks using similar schemes like this.

Over at HSBC it was said the IRGC was using money to buy and sell overvalued properties and chattels across the world, money which was ultimately used to finance terrorism.

There are strong suspicions that Rudy Kurniawan was actually operating a money laundering scheme through buying old wine.

He started out buying up massive quantities of particular vintages and wines - which caused them to jump in price. Pump and dump, I reckon.

Then he realised he could fake the wine and increase the profits.....

kle4

ydoethur said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369365760565477387?s=20

You know, I would like to think that at some point one of the brighter national leaders will tell the Commission to SHUT THE FUCK UP rather than keep drawing attention to their ineptitude in negotiating contracts and the abject failure of their vaccination strategy.

Except the drawing attention to it doesn't seem to have hurt them any, they seem as confident as ever that they've done nothing wrong other than be misled by AZ (and only AZ apparently).

It's the laziness that gets me - we know what someone picking a fight with the EU looks like, we've seen it enough, so we can easily spot how they have been trying to pick fights with the UK, which genuinely doesn't seem to be involved at all.

Carnyx

solarflare said:

Let's combine the two stories and pretend that it is critically important that Piers Morgan stands in the Holyrood election.

What's he going to do, oppose Roseanna Cunningham?

Floater

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1369364187462393857?s=20

I assume the EU rep has to enter round the back, unlike all the other ambassadors.

Expel him

Black_Rook

malcolmg said:

Black_Rook said:

ydoethur said:

Let us assume, hypothetically, that the SNP and Greens fall short of a majority.

Let us also assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption - that the SNP remain the largest party.

What sort of government could be formed?

In Wales, I’m confident it will be Labour/Plaid because anything else is mathematically out of the question. But would Labour agree to a coalition with the SNP if (a) the referendum request was ditched and (b) Sturgeon quit to be replaced by somebody else?

Under those circumstances, an SNP minority administration under a new leader. But there's no realistic prospect of a Unionist majority so the question is moot.

Depends on how list goes, if the new independence parties do well, voting SNP on list is almost a wasted vote, then it could well be a majority for sure. Lots of pissed of independence supporters and given 750K wasted 2nd votes last time it could make a huge impact.

So SNP+ Green doesn't equal a majority but SNP + Green + radical independence people does? I suppose that could be a thing...

WhisperingOracle

The genius of the Palace's mini-statement, demonstrated instantly in the variance of the Guardian and the Mail's responses.

Guardian

Buckingham Palace breaks silence on Meghan and Harry Oprah claims
Statement on behalf of Queen says ‘issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning’

Mail

Queen breaks silence on Harry and Meghan: Palace says 'while some recollections may vary' of race claims, the 'whole family is saddened' to hear of couple's 'challenging few years' - but allegations will be addressed 'privately'

kinabalu

BluestBlue said:

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

Yes, @Northern_Al seems to require open vituperation of the sort so masterfully demonstrated in the 16th-century correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV and his self-exiled courtier Prince Kurbsky. But there's no need for that kind of unsubtle display here: we're British.

On the contrary. His analysis is not skewed by the desperate need to see a "Fuck You Meghan" and is for this reason vastly superior to yours and your dim and tawdry crew.

TheScreamingEagles

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

Not really, you'd need an independent valuer to appraise the value.

Drug money and terrorism funds have been sent through the banks using similar schemes like this.

Over at HSBC it was said the IRGC was using money to buy and sell overvalued properties and chattels across the world, money which was ultimately used to finance terrorism.

There are strong suspicions that Rudy Kurniawan was actually operating a money laundering scheme through buying old wine.

He started out buying up massive quantities of particular vintages and wines - which caused them to jump in price. Pump and dump, I reckon.

Then he realised he could fake the wine and increase the profits.....

Pumping and dumping is a lot more common that I ever realised.

It happens in so many professions and sectors.

I mean I've been accused of pumping and dumping on PB.

alex_

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

I think a lot of American commentary genuinely doesn't understand that the Royal Family is a fundamental part of the British state. They don't get the distinction between the "family" and the institution.

It's not something that can just be easily disposed of on a whim, even if such a change was desired. Something has to take its place. Before pronouncing on its terminal decline, you would think a few of the commentators might stop to consider how come it is that the monarchy still exists in Australia and Canada.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

Not really, you'd need an independent valuer to appraise the value.

Drug money and terrorism funds have been sent through the banks using similar schemes like this.

Over at HSBC it was said the IRGC was using money to buy and sell overvalued properties and chattels across the world, money which was ultimately used to finance terrorism.

There are strong suspicions that Rudy Kurniawan was actually operating a money laundering scheme through buying old wine.

He started out buying up massive quantities of particular vintages and wines - which caused them to jump in price. Pump and dump, I reckon.

Then he realised he could fake the wine and increase the profits.....

Pumping and dumping is a lot more common that I ever realised.

It happens in so many professions and sectors.

I mean I've been accused of pumping and dumping on PB.

Are you talking about your AV threads, or something else?

Carnyx

Black_Rook said:

malcolmg said:

Black_Rook said:

ydoethur said:

Let us assume, hypothetically, that the SNP and Greens fall short of a majority.

Let us also assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption - that the SNP remain the largest party.

What sort of government could be formed?

In Wales, I’m confident it will be Labour/Plaid because anything else is mathematically out of the question. But would Labour agree to a coalition with the SNP if (a) the referendum request was ditched and (b) Sturgeon quit to be replaced by somebody else?

Under those circumstances, an SNP minority administration under a new leader. But there's no realistic prospect of a Unionist majority so the question is moot.

Depends on how list goes, if the new independence parties do well, voting SNP on list is almost a wasted vote, then it could well be a majority for sure. Lots of pissed of independence supporters and given 750K wasted 2nd votes last time it could make a huge impact.

So SNP+ Green doesn't equal a majority but SNP + Green + radical independence people does? I suppose that could be a thing...

And add the odd independent independent (so to speak). For one thing, Andy Wightman is standing in the Highlands and Islands list after parting brass rags with the SGs over you know what.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

Omnium said:

OT entirely

I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.

So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?

I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.

What is your opinion on NFTs?

It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).

In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.

I would have thought that was immediately obvious. Unless you can show a receipt for the purchase of the cryptocurrency the source of it will always be deemed dodgy.

As for NFTs I haven't a clue why anyone would use such a thing except for money laundering purposes - most other things of value have some definable purpose.

You can buy NFTs with fiat currency directly can't you, so I assume you'd get a receipt?

I mean "legitimate" artists such as Grimes and the Foo Fighters are selling NFTs.

The problem with an NFT is that every item is unique. So TSE creates an image that he sells to me as an NFT for $1.

If I sell it to someone in Russia for $1bn is that enough to justify my new found wealth.

At least with Bitcoin there is enough of a market for there to be a market price. That just doesn't exist if the market is a single unique item,

Apart from the CIFAS stuff @TheScreamingEagles mentioned, how is that different from buying a painting from an unknown artist for 10$ and then selling it to a rich Russian in the future for $1bn?

It would trigger an investigation.

One flag is the sale/purchase of an overvalued/undervalued asset.

I assume the regulations will have to be amended if this stuff becomes popular, which it might well do if popular musicians start using the technology.

I personally don't understand why people would want to buy this stuff other than niche uses such as for digital goodies in computer games.

Not really, you'd need an independent valuer to appraise the value.

Drug money and terrorism funds have been sent through the banks using similar schemes like this.

Over at HSBC it was said the IRGC was using money to buy and sell overvalued properties and chattels across the world, money which was ultimately used to finance terrorism.

There are strong suspicions that Rudy Kurniawan was actually operating a money laundering scheme through buying old wine.

He started out buying up massive quantities of particular vintages and wines - which caused them to jump in price. Pump and dump, I reckon.

Then he realised he could fake the wine and increase the profits.....

Pumping and dumping is a lot more common that I ever realised.

It happens in so many professions and sectors.

I mean I've been accused of pumping and dumping on PB.

Are you talking about your AV threads, or something else?

Alas no.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bugger, one of my favourite one cap wonder has died, he played in the test where Devon Malcolm took 9-57.

https://twitter.com/TheCricketerMag/status/1369347408254091272

That is sad news. A great county stalwart who probably deserved more than one cap, and was slightly unlucky that Malcolm got greedy in his second (and last) Test innings.
https://youtu.be/BHzjsjmmZB0

kinabalu

Stocky said:

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

Best thing they can do is not comment. Treat it like a fart in public.

But how do you treat a fart in public, Stocky?

An utter blanking? - Or a short cough and a wrinkle of the nose?

Luckyguy1983

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.

ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/

That would do it. Mental health is no joke, though more subtle people than Piers Morgan will find a way to criticise someone even if mental health issues have been raised, as is only fair.

Precisely. People all around have criticised Meghan and that is fair enough, but Morgan's response to the mental health claims specifically . . . that crossed a line others have swerved. Especially when his employer is running a mental health campaign at the minute.

"Its all fake" says Moron.

Meanwhile with yet another of my friends going into anti-depressants I have to ask what the hell is wrong with the world where so many of us - myself included - find it so desperately hard to cope with.

The world is wonderful. It always has been and always will be. We sometimes get ourselves into a position where this is hard to see. But it is still there being wonderful and waiting for us to see it again.

Endillion

alex_ said:

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

I think a lot of American commentary genuinely doesn't understand that the Royal Family is a fundamental part of the British state. They don't get the distinction between the "family" and the institution.

It's not something that can just be easily disposed of on a whim, even if such a change was desired. Something has to take its place. Before pronouncing on its terminal decline, you would think a few of the commentators might stop to consider how come it is that the monarchy still exists in Australia and Canada.

I always find it bizarre that UK dignitaries are formally greeted by an elected President, actively serving as head of the executive branch of government, when travelling to the US. I think that Americans find it similarly weird that their dignitaries are still met by the Queen, rather than the Prime Minister.