politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives must again make the case for private enterpr

Scrapheap_as_was said:

RobD said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.

There's some choice comments after her tweet....

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554

https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072

And what does it have to do with the wedding?

Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.

I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though

A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.

I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.

that's one argument, another is it's an excuse to promote your hobby horse campaign.....

https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997762381806698496

https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997766833078972417

https://twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/997771715353763841

https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997834064236343296

I do like how they have set their aims realistically to merely having a debate about the monarchy.

I don't really know what is preventing them from having a debate at any time though - that there is not (presently) public interest enough in the debate for the political parties to make it a key part of their political offer, is not anyone else's fault, noone is stopping them from pushing for what they want.

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).

Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!

It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)

The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.

What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.

Who gives a monkeys chuff what they are doing

More than admit it, given such a fuss would not be made if there was not sufficient market to cater for it. Polls can say x% aren't very interested, and no doubt that is true, but clearly enough are interested enough to ensure there is not a backlash to the over emphasis on such events. If there were, there wouldn't have been this fuss.

For sure there are plenty loonies in this country who like them for some bizarre reason. Amazes me that some of them get let out on their own.

Too many cuts in public service to provide minders for all of them malc!

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.

Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!

Nope. Sacking offence to do so. In this, they act as state officials.

Mr. Eagles, cease thy infernal republican heretical utterances!

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

Foxy said:

JackW said:

Roger said:

This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.

I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.

Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....

Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.

Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.

Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?

Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.

Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.

They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.

I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.

If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice

I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.

A reasonable number of the devout regular church attendees have engaged in pre martial sex. (And don't forget that you need *both* partners to be virgins. Not every virginal devout regular church attendee will marry another virginal, etc.

Another virginal? I didn't realise you could marry pianos...

When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

tlg86 said:

Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).

I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.

I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.

My wife wore green, not for any symbolic reasons but because the colour suits her and white doesn't as much.

But white is not just about purity; it can also have a place in dress code. The most formal evening events will expect women to wear white, for example.

As weddings go I enjoyed this one.

That's one loved up couple.

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.

Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!

Nope. Sacking offence to do so. In this, they act as state officials.

That is not what my clerical contacts advise me!

Then they are advising you wrongly.

Whether they would in fact in practice be deprived is another question but since it is vanishingly unlikely that an incumbent would refuse to perform such a marriage in the first place the question doesn't arise very often.

Ishmael_Z said:

OK so just watched the address and it was absolutely cracking and just what I was hoping for, except that he didn't burst into a capella gospel singing. Some nasty UK parochialism about this.

Nasty? Where?

Thanks Harry for not shaving your beard.

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I suspect five years of Corbynism will see support for private enterprise, profit, choice, and competition support surge, might be the only way.

To save the country, we had to destroy the country.

Hmmm.

Are we talking about Brexit or Corbynism?

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I suspect five years of Corbynism will see support for private enterprise, profit, choice, and competition support surge, might be the only way.

To save the country, we had to destroy the country.

Hmmm.

Are we talking about Brexit or Corbynism?

If you think Brexit is bad, wait until you get Corbyn.

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

Foxy said:

JackW said:

Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....

Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.

Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.

Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?

Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.

Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.

They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.

I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.

If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice

I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.

A reasonable number of the devout regular church attendees have engaged in pre martial sex. (And don't forget that you need *both* partners to be virgins. Not every virginal devout regular church attendee will marry another virginal, etc.

I would expect only a relatively small minority of committed churchgoers to have behaved in that way.Allowance also has to be made for those who have been widowed. Others may have seen an earlier marriage break down but still remained chaste in terms of the new relationship.

For those of that mindset, being widowed is the only get-out clause to a second church wedding - though presumably Justin would still ban them from wearing white unless they had a medical certificate to prove otherwise.

Formula E on Channel 5 right now.

Might watch the back end of it if I have time.

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I suspect five years of Corbynism will see support for private enterprise, profit, choice, and competition support surge, might be the only way.

To save the country, we had to destroy the country.

Hmmm.

Are we talking about Brexit or Corbynism?

If you think Brexit is bad, wait until you get Corbyn.

Both are two cheeks of the same arse.

Thankfully Mrs May's BINO will spare us the worst excesses of Brexit.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I suspect five years of Corbynism will see support for private enterprise, profit, choice, and competition support surge, might be the only way.

To save the country, we had to destroy the country.

Hmmm.

Are we talking about Brexit or Corbynism?

If you think Brexit is bad, wait until you get Corbyn.

Both are two cheeks of the same arse.

Thankfully Mrs May's BINO will spare us the worst excesses of Brexit.

Doesn't this arse have three cheeks (Brexit, Trump, and Corbyn)? They should really see a doctor.....

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.

One of Pratchett's finest lines:

'They were called virginals. So called because they were meant for ----ing young women.'

'My word, were they?' asked one of the chairs. 'I thought they were just a kind of early piano.'

I loved the conversation from Making Money that began "Isn't the fornication here wonderful?"

There were times I laughed out loud, reading that book.

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

tlg86 said:

Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).

I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.

I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.

My wife wore green, not for any symbolic reasons but because the colour suits her and white doesn't as much.

But white is not just about purity; it can also have a place in dress code. The most formal evening events will expect women to wear white, for example.

My wife wore the traditional red.

Different cultures, different bridal colours.

Mr. Herdson, the Mongols practised ultimogeniture, whereby the youngest inherited.

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

RoyalBlue said:

Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.

Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.

The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.

To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.

I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.

'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?

In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.

I did not say that the US does not enjoy or do pomp, just that they don't really care about it. When did you last hear an American boast about the pomp of an inaugural, a nomination acceptance, a funeral or a wedding? To them, it is stage management towards a greater goal, not an end in itself.

When I first moved here, I received one of many cultural shocks. When talking about the UK's contribution to history, a good friend interrupted me and said "I don't care about what your country did, what is it doing now?" That is the mindset. Our pomp is mostly historical and nostalgic. It is what we did, not what we can do. It is us saying, look how great we once were. Which I find sad.

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.

Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!

Nope. Sacking offence to do so. In this, they act as state officials.

That is not what my clerical contacts advise me!

Then they are advising you wrongly.

Whether they would in fact in practice be deprived is another question but since it is vanishingly unlikely that an incumbent would refuse to perform such a marriage in the first place the question doesn't arise very often.

Two vicars I know very well have said the same thing. Whist an individual residing within a parish has a right to insist on being married within the local parish church provided the qualifying conditions are satisfied, the individual vicar can on grounds of conscience decline to conduct the service himself and may pass the duty on to another.

Then they're both wrong. A Vicar may decline to conduct any service, including a marriage, of course. But they may be deprived of the living for it as it is an offence. It sounds as though the Bishop in that particular case had indicated this wouldn't happen.

It's a dumb theological position to take though and utterly without moral or scriptural foundation. People live in sin, therefore, let's refuse to regularise the situation now they have repented of living in sin? Epic logic fail there. Moreover, clearly contrary to scripture which says that after repentance any crime may be pardoned.

Moreover, it seems to be based on a lack of understanding of the traditional processes of marriage. They would usually start with the engagement, not the wedding. That's why breaking an engagement was such a very serious matter. It wasn't until the Victorian age that this changed.

Morris_Dancer said:

Formula E on Channel 5 right now.

Might watch the back end of it if I have time.

You might not. It's the morris dancing episode of Dad's Army today.

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.

Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!

Nope. Sacking offence to do so. In this, they act as state officials.

That is not what my clerical contacts advise me!

Then they are advising you wrongly.

Whether they would in fact in practice be deprived is another question but since it is vanishingly unlikely that an incumbent would refuse to perform such a marriage in the first place the question doesn't arise very often.

Two vicars I know very well have said the same thing. Whist an individual residing within a parish has a right to insist on being married within the local parish church provided the qualifying conditions are satisfied, the individual vicar can on grounds of conscience decline to conduct the service himself and may pass the duty on to another.

Then they're both wrong. A Vicar may decline to conduct any service, including a marriage, of course. But they may be deprived of the living for it as it is an offence. It sounds as though the Bishop in that particular case had indicated this wouldn't happen.

It's a dumb theological position to take though and utterly without moral or scriptural foundation. People live in sin, therefore, let's refuse to regularise the situation now they have repented of living in sin? Epic logic fail there. Moreover, clearly contrary to scripture which says that after repentance any crime may be pardoned.

Moreover, it seems to be based on a lack of understanding of the traditional processes of marriage. They would usually start with the engagement, not the wedding. That's why breaking an engagement was such a very serious matter. It wasn't until the Victorian age that this changed.

I think it would be reasonable to refuse to marry an adulterous couple whose former spouses are still alive, for in that case, the vicar would be endorsing the sin. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Mr. L, huzzah! I may watch that instead, if I have the time.

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

Foxy said:

JackW said:

Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....

Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.

Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.

Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?

Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.

Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.

They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.

I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.

If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practice

I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.

A reasonable number of the devout regular church attendees have engaged in pre martial sex. (And don't forget that you need *both* partners to be virgins. Not every virginal devout regular church attendee will marry another virginal, etc.

I would expect only a relatively small minority of committed churchgoers to have behaved in that way.Allowance also has to be made for those who have been widowed. Others may have seen an earlier marriage break down but still remained chaste in terms of the new relationship.

For those of that mindset, being widowed is the only get-out clause to a second church wedding - though presumably Justin would still ban them from wearing white unless they had a medical certificate to prove otherwise.

Would a murder conviction be an acceptable alternative?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Herdson, the Mongols practised ultimogeniture, whereby the youngest inherited.

And what a fine system it was too.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FYI - At 9pm Channel 4 are showing one of my all time favourite films, The Martian.

If you've never seen it then watch it, you won't regret it.

Also has an awesome soundtrack.

I knew there was a reason I liked you - one of my favourite movies, and a good adaptation of the book, which I;ve listened to many times, and which is marvelous. (Sadly the author's second novel Artemis is merely ok).

This is a great day.

Both Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy attended the wedding, so I’ve just made £330 off a £10 combined stake.

PaddyPower offering them each at 33/1 five months ago was utterly crazy.

Casino_Royale said:

This is a great day.

Both Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy attended the wedding, so I’ve just made £330 off a £10 combined stake.

PaddyPower offering them each at 33/1 five months ago was utterly crazy.

What I'd like to know is what uniform Prince Harry was wearing. Apparently he had several options, but the only outfits I can see mentioned are the ladies' style choices.

MTimT said:

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

RoyalBlue said:

Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.

Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.

The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.

To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.

I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.

'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?

In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.

I did not say that the US does not enjoy or do pomp, just that they don't really care about it. When did you last hear an American boast about the pomp of an inaugural, a nomination acceptance, a funeral or a wedding? To them, it is stage management towards a greater goal, not an end in itself.

When I first moved here, I received one of many cultural shocks. When talking about the UK's contribution to history, a good friend interrupted me and said "I don't care about what your country did, what is it doing now?" That is the mindset. Our pomp is mostly historical and nostalgic. It is what we did, not what we can do. It is us saying, look how great we once were. Which I find sad.

Maybe now, in a few decades when China has become the world's largest economy and largest superpower and the US is down to no 2 and can no longer boast about being first in all fields it may find interest and celebration of its own history and culture more important.

After all even if China becomes the world's greatest power it is unlikely to match the freedom, democracy and gdp per capita of the USA.

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

RoyalBlue said:

Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.

Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.

The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.

To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.

I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.

'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?

In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.

I did not say that the US does not enjoy or do pomp, just that they don't really care about it. When did you last hear an American boast about the pomp of an inaugural, a nomination acceptance, a funeral or a wedding? To them, it is stage management towards a greater goal, not an end in itself.

When I first moved here, I received one of many cultural shocks. When talking about the UK's contribution to history, a good friend interrupted me and said "I don't care about what your country did, what is it doing now?" That is the mindset. Our pomp is mostly historical and nostalgic. It is what we did, not what we can do. It is us saying, look how great we once were. Which I find sad.

Maybe now, in a few decades when China has become the world's largest economy and largest superpower and the US is down to no 2 and can no longer boast about being first in all fields it may find interest and celebration of its own history and culture more important.

After all even if China becomes the world's greatest power it is unlikely to match the freedom, democracy and gdp per capita of the USA.

Whatever happens in the world, the winners of the US's domestic sporting competitions will still be crowned as World Champions.

AnneJGP said:

Casino_Royale said:

This is a great day.

Both Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy attended the wedding, so I’ve just made £330 off a £10 combined stake.

PaddyPower offering them each at 33/1 five months ago was utterly crazy.

What I'd like to know is what uniform Prince Harry was wearing. Apparently he had several options, but the only outfits I can see mentioned are the ladies' style choices.

It was his Blues and Royals’s uniform.

AnneJGP said:

Casino_Royale said:

This is a great day.

Both Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy attended the wedding, so I’ve just made £330 off a £10 combined stake.

PaddyPower offering them each at 33/1 five months ago was utterly crazy.

What I'd like to know is what uniform Prince Harry was wearing. Apparently he had several options, but the only outfits I can see mentioned are the ladies' style choices.

William and Harry wore their regimental frock uniform of the Blues and Royals. William with the braid of an ADC to the Queen and Garter Star. Harry with the KCVO. The uniforms were probably tailored by Dege and Skinner.

Yorkcity said:

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!

It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)

The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.

What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.

I agree, however I do not believe if it was the first son and heir to the throne.The same would apply in been able to marry a person who was a divorcee , schooled in Catholicm , and mixed race.

I hope, I would be wrong , but I doubt it.

The current heir to the throne is married to a divorcee. I think the last of the barriers to be breached will be the Catholic one rather than the mixed race one.

If one were developing a country from scratch I would not choose a monarchy. But that is the point: we’re not starting from a blank sheet of paper. I can see no good reason to remove the monarchy from Britain. On the whole it works well. There are plenty of things wrong that need fixing which are way more important.

And I am instinctively wary of those groups who want to rip everything up and start again. In politics that has usually resulted in a lot of destruction and misery and very little constructive achievement to show for it.

There is an example right in front of us but the name escapes me for the moment......

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.

One of Pratchett's finest lines:

'They were called virginals. So called because they were meant for ----ing young women.'

'My word, were they?' asked one of the chairs. 'I thought they were just a kind of early piano.'

I loved the conversation from Making Money that began "Isn't the fornication here wonderful?"

There were times I laughed out loud, reading that book.

Going Postal and Making Money were both superb - a shame about Raising Steam, which could have been so good but was very much not.

Going Postal might well be his finest work.

That whole first chapter - a work of genius. RIP Sir Terry, we shall miss ye.

Isn't there to be a Good Omens TV show out soon? It will probably be terrible, I don't know how well much of his work does when not on paper.

JackW said:

AnneJGP said:

Casino_Royale said:

This is a great day.

Both Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy attended the wedding, so I’ve just made £330 off a £10 combined stake.

PaddyPower offering them each at 33/1 five months ago was utterly crazy.

What I'd like to know is what uniform Prince Harry was wearing. Apparently he had several options, but the only outfits I can see mentioned are the ladies' style choices.

William and Harry wore their regimental frock uniform of the Blues and Royals. William with the braid of an ADC to the Queen and Garter Star. Harry with the KCVO. The uniforms were probably tailored by Dege and Skinner.

Many thanks.

Cyclefree said:

And I am instinctively wary of those groups who want to rip everything up and start again. In politics that has usually resulted in a lot of destruction and misery and very little constructive achievement to show for it.

There is an example right in front of us but the name escapes me for the moment......

If you don't mind a techy read, this is an excellent article on that very phenomenon: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

Cyclefree said:

If one were developing a country from scratch I would not choose a monarchy. But that is the point: we’re not starting from a blank sheet of paper. I can see no good reason to remove the monarchy from Britain. On the whole it works well. There are plenty of things wrong that need fixing which are way more important.

And I am instinctively wary of those groups who want to rip everything up and start again. In politics that has usually resulted in a lot of destruction and misery and very little constructive achievement to show for it.

Chesterton's fence is a rather important thing to bear in mind:
http://www.theconceptsproject.com/chestertons-fence/#.WwBhX-ko-f0

Chesterton's Fence says, in short, that you should never let someone reform something (a rule, an institution) if he tells you that the thing doesn't serve any purpose. The philosopher G.K. Chesterton vividly illustrated his idea by asking us to imagine a fence strung up across a road, representing any kind of law or institution that we might find odd or inexplicable. There's a certain type of reformer, says Chesterton, who

...goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Chesterton's Fence is a claim that every rule or institution you encounter probably exists for a reason. It might be a bad reason, an outdated reason, or even an evil reason, but the fence didn't just appear out of nowhere. As Chesterton put it,

[The] fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FYI - At 9pm Channel 4 are showing one of my all time favourite films, The Martian.

If you've never seen it then watch it, you won't regret it.

Also has an awesome soundtrack.

I recently went to a talk by John Elwood, the former head of the European Space Agency (and Dartmouth resident), about Mars. He was very complimentary about the science in The Martian. Said it was pretty much spot on.

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

And I am instinctively wary of those groups who want to rip everything up and start again. In politics that has usually resulted in a lot of destruction and misery and very little constructive achievement to show for it.

There is an example right in front of us but the name escapes me for the moment......

If you don't mind a techy read, this is an excellent article on that very phenomenon: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

An interesting read. Thank you.

Similarly, companies/institutions all too often do not value corporate memory. So you get them repeating the same mistakes that happened 10, 15 or 20 years earlier because there are too few people who are listened to who remember what went wrong, why and can spot the signs of it happening again.

I see, for instance, that one Mr McDonnell, rightly criticising some of the issues leading to the Carillion debacle, is thinking of abolishing or restructuring the FCA.

The heart sinks. Every new government does something like this. Management consultants who know the square root of fuck all about finance are brought in with proposals, a lot of energy and brainpower is wasted on structural changes, a lot of experience, knowledge and wisdom is lost and in a few years time we can all look forward to reading yet another report about another fuck up, the seeds of which were sown while those in charge were arguing about the colour of a logo, some procedures and whether the Board was diverse enough.

Andy_Cooke said:

Cyclefree said:

If one were developing a country from scratch I would not choose a monarchy. But that is the point: we’re not starting from a blank sheet of paper. I can see no good reason to remove the monarchy from Britain. On the whole it works well. There are plenty of things wrong that need fixing which are way more important.

And I am instinctively wary of those groups who want to rip everything up and start again. In politics that has usually resulted in a lot of destruction and misery and very little constructive achievement to show for it.

Chesterton's fence is a rather important thing to bear in mind:
http://www.theconceptsproject.com/chestertons-fence/#.WwBhX-ko-f0

Chesterton's Fence says, in short, that you should never let someone reform something (a rule, an institution) if he tells you that the thing doesn't serve any purpose. The philosopher G.K. Chesterton vividly illustrated his idea by asking us to imagine a fence strung up across a road, representing any kind of law or institution that we might find odd or inexplicable. There's a certain type of reformer, says Chesterton, who

...goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Chesterton's Fence is a claim that every rule or institution you encounter probably exists for a reason. It might be a bad reason, an outdated reason, or even an evil reason, but the fence didn't just appear out of nowhere. As Chesterton put it,

[The] fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.

Thanks.

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.

Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!

Nope. Sacking offence to do so. In this, they act as state officials.

That is not what my clerical contacts advise me!

Two vicars I know very well have said the same thing. Whist an individual residing within a parish has a right to insist on being married within the local parish church provided the qualifying conditions are satisfied, the individual vicar can on grounds of conscience decline to conduct the service himself and may pass the duty on to another.

Then they're both wrong. .

But whatever you and others might wish to maintain today, it is surely an undeniable fact that back in the 1950s and at least most of the 1960s pre-maritents.

Of course, Jesus was born to an unmarried teenage mother.

It all depends whether we as religious folk concentrate like the pharisees on external observances to demonstrate our rectitude to others, or whether it is the inward observances of the heart that matter. The inward observances will exhibit in external deeds, but by their nature known only to the individual and to God. The latter is the more Protestant view, being based on an individual, unmediated relationship to God. I believe that this was also Jesus' message, as told in many parables, and in the piece by Bishop Curry today (or at least what excerpts that I saw).

I think there is a difference between the Church holding heterosexual, virgins when wed, lifelong married couples as the ideal and the reality that most of us will not live up to that ideal and that how we treat and help others and how we make the best of our talents are just as important as how we lead our personal lives in fulfilling the Christian message

"Let he wot is without sin cast the first stone!"

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.

Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!

Nope. Sacking offence to do so. In this, they act as state officials.

That is not what my clerical contacts advise me!

Two vicars I know very well have said the same thing. Whist an individual residing within a parish has a right to insist on being married within the local parish church provided the qualifying conditions are satisfied, the individual vicar can on grounds of conscience decline to conduct the service himself and may pass the duty on to another.

Then they're both wrong. .

But whatever you and others might wish to maintain today, it is surely an undeniable fact that back in the 1950s and at least most of the 1960s pre-maritents.

Of course, Jesus was born to an unmarried teenage mother.

It all depends whether we as religious folk concentrate like the pharisees on external observances to demonstrate our rectitude to others, or whether it is the inward observances of the heart that matter. The inward observances will exhibit in external deeds, but by their nature known only to the individual and to God. The latter is the more Protestant view, being based on an individual, unmediated relationship to God. I believe that this was also Jesus' message, as told in many parables, and in the piece by Bishop Curry today (or at least what excerpts that I saw).

I think there is a difference between the Church holding heterosexual, virgins when wed, lifelong married couples as the ideal and the reality that most of us will not live up to that ideal and that how we treat and help others and how we make the best of our talents are just as important as how we lead our personal lives in fulfilling the Christian message

"Let he wot is without sin cast the first stone!"

A good summary

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

And I am instinctively wary of those groups who want to rip everything up and start again. In politics that has usually resulted in a lot of destruction and misery and very little constructive achievement to show for it.

There is an example right in front of us but the name escapes me for the moment......

If you don't mind a techy read, this is an excellent article on that very phenomenon: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

An interesting read. Thank you.

Similarly, companies/institutions all too often do not value corporate memory. So you get them repeating the same mistakes that happened 10, 15 or 20 years earlier because there are too few people who are listened to who remember what went wrong, why and can spot the signs of it happening again.

I see, for instance, that one Mr McDonnell, rightly criticising some of the issues leading to the Carillion debacle, is thinking of abolishing or restructuring the FCA.

The heart sinks. Every new government does something like this. Management consultants who know the square root of fuck all about finance are brought in with proposals, a lot of energy and brainpower is wasted on structural changes, a lot of experience, knowledge and wisdom is lost and in a few years time we can all look forward to reading yet another report about another fuck up, the seeds of which were sown while those in charge were arguing about the colour of a logo, some procedures and whether the Board was diverse enough.

It's been a bit depressing round my way to see the local gov starting a review of something they reviewed just 5 years ago, mostly because no one implemented any of the recs from the last time, and even though several of the top people are the same, no one seems to remember they went over all of it before, and could at the least save some time on the investigation stage of what the problems are.

I'm just resolved to not get roped into it, since it was a bloody waste of time 5 years ago and I'll be damned if I waste time on it again.

Sounds like NHS management, though our cycle is higher frequency!

I think the value of E-type Jags has just spiked ....

re D Herdson's piece. Even though I'm centre-left I find it hard to argue for state-operated transport systems. There is plenty of competition in the transport market, and this market is bound to be distorted if one or more of the players is state-owned. What the Tories have failed to do, through a mixture of incompetence and cronyism, is find an effective model for delivering consistently good service from private operators. Such models do exist; the government is simply blinkered.

kle4 said:

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

When I was at Longleat House a few weeks ago one of the rooms had a virginal in it - one was referenced in Terry Pratchett's The Truth but I had no idea they were real.

One of Pratchett's finest lines:

'They were called virginals. So called because they were meant for ----ing young women.'

'My word, were they?' asked one of the chairs. 'I thought they were just a kind of early piano.'

I loved the conversation from Making Money that began "Isn't the fornication here wonderful?"

There were times I laughed out loud, reading that book.

Going Postal and Making Money were both superb - a shame about Raising Steam, which could have been so good but was very much not.

Going Postal might well be his finest work.

That whole first chapter - a work of genius. RIP Sir Terry, we shall miss ye.

Isn't there to be a Good Omens TV show out soon? It will probably be terrible, I don't know how well much of his work does when not on paper.

Going Postal is brilliant but for me Mascarade was his pinnacle. I have read it so many times and I still find myself laughing uncontrollably.