So the clown continues to embarrass our country on the world stage.
I do hope Big_G and his ilk are happy.
These ilk are always the ones to watch for.
Whenever I see 'ilk' I can't help imagining a smaller relative of elk. So I have this pleasant picture of Big_G surrounded by happy looking deer-like creatures.
I am hoping - but not necessarily expecting - that after COP26, all the ilk, elk etc will be a bit happier.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
At some point, millions of years ago, a few pieces of stinking slime crawled from the Sea and shouted to the Heavens "I am Man!"
Much more recently than that. And wasn't it "...Trump !" ?
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine went to a Republican barbecue in Texas, thinking it would be much the same as a Conservative barbecue in this country.
Wrong! He said that almost every conversation he had with them was completely outlandish.
Large elements of the party are in danger of becoming an American Taliban.
The poll from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute paints a troubling portrait of a growing segment of the public that is increasingly unmoored from reality as it embraces conspiracy theories about child abduction and stolen elections.
It found a deep divide between those who trust right-wing media outlets and the rest of the nation — and even a divide between those who trust Fox News and those who trust outlets like One America Network and Newsmax.
The poll found about three in ten Americans, 31 percent, believe the 2020 elections were stolen from Trump, including two-thirds of Republicans and a whopping 82 percent of those who trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.
Among those who trust far-right outlets like One America Network and Newsmax, 97 percent say they believe the election — which even Trump’s own cybersecurity and election security officials agreed was the safest and most secure ever conducted in the United States — was stolen.
One in five Americans believe in the core tenet of the QAnon conspiracy that “there is a storm coming soon,” while one in six believe the United States government is controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking ring.
The same share, 18 percent, say they agree with the statement that America has gotten so far off track that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”...
And it's all evangelicals too. Once you start believing in stuff without evidence, you can be fed any lie. Despite the US being founded on Enlightenment principles, the rationalist spirit of the Enlightenment never took deep root in the US population as it did in Western Europe.
Not all evangelicals are QAnon though and indeed plenty of black evangelicals will have voted for Biden-Harris.
I agree. If the royals can't stay out of politics, we might as well have an elected president instead.
I disagree, there is nothing wrong with the royals speaking on matters where there is general agreement, like tackling climate change.
Indeed Prince Charles has been campaigning for the environment for decades, even before it was fashionable.
I have no problem with Charles speaking out a bit more on issues than his mother did when he takes the throne, Parliament still decides and makes the laws but no reason the Head of State cannot make remarks on issues like climate change.
The difference with an elected Head of State like the French or US President however is they directly propose legislation to their legislature and send troops to war and in the US of course the President can veto and amend legislation passed by Congress, even popular bills.
The monarch in the UK has not done that since the English civil war and glorious revolution
Nope.
Our monarch is not allowed to opine on anyone's lifestyle especially if they are advocating a lifestyle which is likely to increase costs or deny certain people access on account of financial privation.
They are.
The Prince of Wales practices what he preaches, he produces organic food, the Duchy of Cornwall creates communities like Pundbury based on traditional architecture and employing local people.
There is, though, a certain irony to a Prince of Wales committed to employing local people while he himself is English and lives in England. The Royal Family even went for overseas talent for the Duchess of Sussex and then proceeded to offshore that entire operation.
He's called the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, oddly enough. Not very logical that he has the same name in 2 out of the three GB nations but a different name in the third. One title or three titles would make better sense.
Not just that anymore..
His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Merioneth, Baron of Renfrew, Baron Greenwich, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, CC, PC, ADC
And here was me thinking Lord of the Isles was just a ferry!
Nooo. Ships are female, Lady of the Isles could be a ferry.
Who dictates this? Can't ships self-identify how they want?
Submarines are definitely male.
Long, hard, and full of seaman.
Reminds me of the terrible Herald of Free Enterprise joke, something to do with roll on, roll off and seamen.
Either the switching of cars was part of a very cunning plan, or the police stitched him up good and proper.
It is completely bizarre, he managed to drive past 25 CCTV cameras both ways and was never caught on any of them.
He managed to abduct his wife from a busy walkway at 9 a.m. on a workday morning with no one seeing him or the car before, after or during the abduction.
If he was as cunning as they say then he would have made sure there was no blood left and would never have abducted her in his friends car (he owned up to the police staright away that he had borrowed his friends car on the day of the abduction)
And police scientists took three attempts to find blood that was easily seen with the naked eye in a car that had been valetted after the police's first two attempts to find stuff had yielded nothing.
And yet the BBC researcher who examined the case later expressed herself satisfied. I certainly feel that there's more than was reported in the piece you posted.
There is more but nothing that benefits the prosecution case. If he did do it he pulled off an incredible series of events.
One of the reports said he was jailed for "a minimum of 16 years". Will he ever get out if he doesn't say where the body is? Surely there is a defined jail term isn't there?
I dont think he will ever get out, he has to admit he did it to get parole, and he won't. He has been a model prisoner and has been in a open prison for a while now, which indicates that the Prison service do not see him as a threat. If he did admit it and give the location of the body then he would get released pretty quickly.
If he didn't kill her then he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
There is an excellent book The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice by Bob Woffinden. Glyn Razzell's case is chapter 1
Which is a terrible situation. The state can’t admit that they might occasionally have made a mistake. He can’t possibly admit to killing his wife, if in fact he didn’t.
I agree. If the royals can't stay out of politics, we might as well have an elected president instead.
I disagree, there is nothing wrong with the royals speaking on matters where there is general agreement, like tackling climate change.
Indeed Prince Charles has been campaigning for the environment for decades, even before it was fashionable.
I have no problem with Charles speaking out a bit more on issues than his mother did when he takes the throne, Parliament still decides and makes the laws but no reason the Head of State cannot make remarks on issues like climate change.
The difference with an elected Head of State like the French or US President however is they directly propose legislation to their legislature and send troops to war and in the US of course the President can veto and amend legislation passed by Congress, even popular bills.
The monarch in the UK has not done that since the English civil war and glorious revolution
Nope.
Our monarch is not allowed to opine on anyone's lifestyle especially if they are advocating a lifestyle which is likely to increase costs or deny certain people access on account of financial privation.
They are.
The Prince of Wales practices what he preaches, he produces organic food, the Duchy of Cornwall creates communities like Pundbury based on traditional architecture and employing local people.
Don't be absurd. Not everyone can afford to have their Aston Martin converted to electric. Monarchs are not allowed to advocate anything that might increase costs for the nation.
But the Duchy of Cornwall is profitable. How is that increasing the costs for the nation?
Depends on how much subsidy he gets, e.g. for farming. (OK, if he didn't, others would, but the same logic applies across the board ...).
The point I am making is that going organic does not require subsidy. I have a friend locally who became the first organic tree nursery in the USA. He grows both organic and not organic trees on his farm. And he found that his organic trees are way more profitable. Yes, he can charge a premium (note, that is a market price, not a subsidy). But he also found that the practices that made the growing organic we just good practices in general, leading to healthier, faster growing trees. Even if he only charged the non-organic price for those trees grown organically, he'd be making more money than on the non-organic trees.
People have this view that doing things in a morally or environmentally right way is necessarily more expensive and a drag on the economy. It is simply not true as a blanket statement.
Might be a stupid question, but if that is the case, why does he still grow non-organic trees? It would be more profitable to go all organic, even if selling some at non-organic prices?
Doesn't land have to be organic only for 3 years to get certification in the UK? In the meantime the crops would not be organic.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
At some point, millions of years ago, a few pieces of stinking slime crawled from the Sea and shouted to the Heavens "I am Man!"
Much more recently than that. And wasn't it "...Trump !" ?
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine went to a Republican barbecue in Texas, thinking it would be much the same as a Conservative barbecue in this country.
Wrong! He said that almost every conversation he had with them was completely outlandish.
Large elements of the party are in danger of becoming an American Taliban.
The poll from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute paints a troubling portrait of a growing segment of the public that is increasingly unmoored from reality as it embraces conspiracy theories about child abduction and stolen elections.
It found a deep divide between those who trust right-wing media outlets and the rest of the nation — and even a divide between those who trust Fox News and those who trust outlets like One America Network and Newsmax.
The poll found about three in ten Americans, 31 percent, believe the 2020 elections were stolen from Trump, including two-thirds of Republicans and a whopping 82 percent of those who trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.
Among those who trust far-right outlets like One America Network and Newsmax, 97 percent say they believe the election — which even Trump’s own cybersecurity and election security officials agreed was the safest and most secure ever conducted in the United States — was stolen.
One in five Americans believe in the core tenet of the QAnon conspiracy that “there is a storm coming soon,” while one in six believe the United States government is controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking ring.
The same share, 18 percent, say they agree with the statement that America has gotten so far off track that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”...
And it's all evangelicals too. Once you start believing in stuff without evidence, you can be fed any lie. Despite the US being founded on Enlightenment principles, the rationalist spirit of the Enlightenment never took deep root in the US population as it did in Western Europe.
Not all evangelicals are QAnon though and indeed plenty of black evangelicals will have voted for Biden-Harris.
The inescapable conclusion from his comments is that HYFUD is arguably the site's most fervent republican.
The notion that the Crown could veto legislation, irrespective of manifesto contents, beyond defending our democracy in extremis (govt extending life of a Parliament except in war, declaring one party state etc) is bewilderingly grotesque. There's a reason why the last veto was in 1708.
Such an action would be a direct assault on our constitution. No party would even conceive of supporting it: a Republic established within 12 months max. It ain't going to happen.
Charles will be a model constitutional monarch. That really is the end of it.
It wouldn't. We do not have a written constitution, our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament in lawmaking.
The English civil war and the glorious revolution merely asserted that Parliament had to be used to make laws and raise taxes and make wars, we could not be governed by the divine right of Kings alone.
However it did not mean that the monarch could have no role in lawmaking whatsoever. If the monarch vetoed a bill which was not in the manifesto of the elected government it would not be unconstitutional even if maybe not advisable. Whatever the parties in Parliament thought about it they could not stop it.
However even if Charles is unlikely to do even that there is certainly absolutely nothing in our constitution to stop the monarch giving their personal views on matters of policy or politics, which was my original point
We do have a constitution albeit an unwritten one. Numerous learned tomes have been written on it: you could make an easy and readable start with Walter Bagehot.
It would be a truly moronic Monarch who started pontificating on poitically contentious or partisan issues. And a very short-lived reign too.
With the best will in the world, don't you ever pause and reflect on the implications of some of your outlandish assertions? On this one, Republicans couldn't have a better friend and ally than you. We Tory patriots, who genuinely cherish our constiutional monarchy, recoil in horror.
Bagehot is merely giving his opinion of what it is, it is still Crown in Parliament on which our constitution is based and Crown in Parliament alone.
You need both Parliament's support and the Crown's agreement to make laws.
You can rant as much as you want and try and muzzle Prince Charles speaking on climate change. However constitutionally there is nothing whatsoever to stop it.
I already said if the monarch continually said very unpopular things or vetoed manifesto commitments and popular things becoming law there would be a problem.
If the monarch says things most agree with, like on climate change, or even if they vetoed unpopular bills not in the government's manifesto, there would be no problem whatsoever. Either constitutionally or with the public
So the Bill of Rights, Petition of Rights, Representation of the People Acts, and Parliament Acts are nothing special? Bagehot and the written summary of Parliamentary convention is just this meaningless book?
Did someone once tell you that "it's just 'Crown in Parliament' " and you grabbed that as a simple and straightforward thing?
We have a constitution. It is uncodified, not unwritten. You have to go through a bunch of written documents (including the ones above).
I agree. If the royals can't stay out of politics, we might as well have an elected president instead.
I disagree, there is nothing wrong with the royals speaking on matters where there is general agreement, like tackling climate change.
Indeed Prince Charles has been campaigning for the environment for decades, even before it was fashionable.
I have no problem with Charles speaking out a bit more on issues than his mother did when he takes the throne, Parliament still decides and makes the laws but no reason the Head of State cannot make remarks on issues like climate change.
The difference with an elected Head of State like the French or US President however is they directly propose legislation to their legislature and send troops to war and in the US of course the President can veto and amend legislation passed by Congress, even popular bills.
The monarch in the UK has not done that since the English civil war and glorious revolution
Nope.
Our monarch is not allowed to opine on anyone's lifestyle especially if they are advocating a lifestyle which is likely to increase costs or deny certain people access on account of financial privation.
They are.
The Prince of Wales practices what he preaches, he produces organic food, the Duchy of Cornwall creates communities like Pundbury based on traditional architecture and employing local people.
There is, though, a certain irony to a Prince of Wales committed to employing local people while he himself is English and lives in England. The Royal Family even went for overseas talent for the Duchess of Sussex and then proceeded to offshore that entire operation.
He's called the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, oddly enough. Not very logical that he has the same name in 2 out of the three GB nations but a different name in the third. One title or three titles would make better sense.
Not just that anymore..
His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Merioneth, Baron of Renfrew, Baron Greenwich, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, CC, PC, ADC
And here was me thinking Lord of the Isles was just a ferry!
Nooo. Ships are female, Lady of the Isles could be a ferry.
Who dictates this? Can't ships self-identify how they want?
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
At some point, millions of years ago, a few pieces of stinking slime crawled from the Sea and shouted to the Heavens "I am Man!"
Much more recently than that. And wasn't it "...Trump !" ?
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine went to a Republican barbecue in Texas, thinking it would be much the same as a Conservative barbecue in this country.
Wrong! He said that almost every conversation he had with them was completely outlandish.
Large elements of the party are in danger of becoming an American Taliban.
The poll from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute paints a troubling portrait of a growing segment of the public that is increasingly unmoored from reality as it embraces conspiracy theories about child abduction and stolen elections.
It found a deep divide between those who trust right-wing media outlets and the rest of the nation — and even a divide between those who trust Fox News and those who trust outlets like One America Network and Newsmax.
The poll found about three in ten Americans, 31 percent, believe the 2020 elections were stolen from Trump, including two-thirds of Republicans and a whopping 82 percent of those who trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.
Among those who trust far-right outlets like One America Network and Newsmax, 97 percent say they believe the election — which even Trump’s own cybersecurity and election security officials agreed was the safest and most secure ever conducted in the United States — was stolen.
One in five Americans believe in the core tenet of the QAnon conspiracy that “there is a storm coming soon,” while one in six believe the United States government is controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking ring.
The same share, 18 percent, say they agree with the statement that America has gotten so far off track that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”...
And it's all evangelicals too. Once you start believing in stuff without evidence, you can be fed any lie. Despite the US being founded on Enlightenment principles, the rationalist spirit of the Enlightenment never took deep root in the US population as it did in Western Europe.
Not all evangelicals are QAnon though and indeed plenty of black evangelicals will have voted for Biden-Harris.
While an authoritarian like yourself may regard a fifth of a group willing to use violence as small, that is a crazy high number to those of us that value democracy. It is getting up towards numbers in the Muslim world.
As the foundation of the USA was a bloody revolution, rejecting the use of violence to pursue political goals is an interesting point of view, suggesting that the whole idea was a mistake...
Indeed, otherwise it would be King Charles IIIrd of the USA too
Interesting factoid: the UK has has a female head of state for more than half the time that the USA has been in existence, during which time they have had none.
Despite the fact that that the US choose their every four years, and have had 45 people hold the office since their independence.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.
World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.
500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.
50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.
There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.
The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.
Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
Something which is going to be a problem fairly soon (historically speaking) with or without man doing anything.
We suffer from having short racial memories and a short history. We have lived through a relatively stable period that has allowed civilisation to grow in an extremely unusual period of climate stability. This has meant we have planted much of our population in places where we should not have done. Places that would flood in the not too distant future even if man had never appeared on the planet. Moreover our failure to understand or ignore processes such as isostatic readjustment - and to take steps that have made it even worse in places like New Orleans means that we have simply added to our woes.
We are a short lived species lacking a proper sense of how much the world changes of its own accord. As such we will continue to believe we can do something to change it and will remain woefully unprepared for when it is finally realised that we can't.
There are sound economic reasons why human society has developed largely around coasts and rivers. How exactly do you propose to undo that?
You can't. We just have to accept that natural processes will eventually undo it for us with or without our agreement.
So what? Natural processes will eventually undo you and me and everybody else. That isn't generally regarded as an argument against the practise of medicine, which is merely a huge exercise in delaying the inevitable.
The point being argued is that it is possible to prevent either isostatic or eustatic sea level changes. It isn't. So your medicine argument is a straw man with nothing to do with this discussion.
The inescapable conclusion from his comments is that HYFUD is arguably the site's most fervent republican.
The notion that the Crown could veto legislation, irrespective of manifesto contents, beyond defending our democracy in extremis (govt extending life of a Parliament except in war, declaring one party state etc) is bewilderingly grotesque. There's a reason why the last veto was in 1708.
Such an action would be a direct assault on our constitution. No party would even conceive of supporting it: a Republic established within 12 months max. It ain't going to happen.
Charles will be a model constitutional monarch. That really is the end of it.
It wouldn't. We do not have a written constitution, our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament in lawmaking.
The English civil war and the glorious revolution merely asserted that Parliament had to be used to make laws and raise taxes and make wars, we could not be governed by the divine right of Kings alone.
However it did not mean that the monarch could have no role in lawmaking whatsoever. If the monarch vetoed a bill which was not in the manifesto of the elected government it would not be unconstitutional even if maybe not advisable. Whatever the parties in Parliament thought about it they could not stop it.
However even if Charles is unlikely to do even that there is certainly absolutely nothing in our constitution to stop the monarch giving their personal views on matters of policy or politics, which was my original point
We do have a constitution albeit an unwritten one. Numerous learned tomes have been written on it: you could make an easy and readable start with Walter Bagehot.
It would be a truly moronic Monarch who started pontificating on poitically contentious or partisan issues. And a very short-lived reign too.
With the best will in the world, don't you ever pause and reflect on the implications of some of your outlandish assertions? On this one, Republicans couldn't have a better friend and ally than you. We Tory patriots, who genuinely cherish our constiutional monarchy, recoil in horror.
Bagehot is merely giving his opinion of what it is, it is still Crown in Parliament on which our constitution is based and Crown in Parliament alone.
You need both Parliament's support and the Crown's agreement to make laws.
You can rant as much as you want and try and muzzle Prince Charles speaking on climate change. However constitutionally there is nothing whatsoever to stop it.
I already said if the monarch continually said very unpopular things or vetoed manifesto commitments and popular things becoming law there would be a problem.
If the monarch says things most agree with, like on climate change, or even if they vetoed unpopular bills not in the government's manifesto, there would be no problem whatsoever. Either constitutionally or with the public
"If the monarch says things most agree with, like on climate change, or even if they vetoed unpopular bills not in the government's manifesto, there would be no problem whatsoever. Either constitutionally or with the public".
Utterly and tragically delusional. Stick to the park benches and the allotments.
Is it? If a future government passed a deeply unpopular bill through Parliament to, say, allow development in our National Parks beyond just exceptional circumstances which was not in its manifesto and which Prince Charles vetoed I expect he would have the full support of most of the public on that even if it annoyed senior politicians
One final go and that's it from me. I can only do so much for King, country, party and pb.
So, let's take your example. Suppose this was a Tory govt with a Commons majority who passed such legislation and the King vetoed it. The Government would of course resign and its MPs and party activists would be outraged. That's TORY activists. Now, would Labour take office in these circumstances? Absolutely not, and indeed the veto would be grist to the mill of their Republicanism.
So off we jolly well go to a general election with ALL parties (including LibDems, SNP, Greens, SDLP - I'll possibly give you the DUP) fighting it on the platform of unelected, unaccountable monarch vs Parliamentary democracy. So, whoever wins, the King loses with abdication at best and abolition altogether most likely.
It is quite absurd that this has to be explained to you. And of course it will never, ever happen.
I'm sorry John, but you're wrong.
If a Conservative government were to pass a measure that the Monarch would veto, then they wouldn't be a Conservative government! It is one of the core tenets of True Conservatism to be a monarchist, and no monarchist would pass a Bill that the Monarch could not give assent to.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Like it. A basket of Neanderthals*; they're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.
*though I get that they have received a very bad 'winners' press
Now there's a killer line for Harris when she battles Trump for WH24!
Of course it worked so well for Hillary in 2016, she is now in her second term!
Well, there's this view that it cost her, but I don't know. Sometimes you have to be brave, and maybe next time, if it's Harris, she'll double down and hit the jackpot.
The way to excise Trumpism from the body politic is for Democrats to split the Republicans and win the support of the third of Republicans who accept the democratic process.
If I knew how to pull off a political manoeuvre like that then I'd have been giving the opening address to COP 26, but I would guess that a strong component would have to be revulsion at the anti-democratic behaviour of the Trumpists. Though you have to add something welcoming into the mix too.
Yes, MAGA can't win without getting votes from lots of people who KNOW it's a bad bad thing that they do that day when they give those votes. I personally, as I've posted a few times, remain confident America won't go that route. They'll find a way not to. Can't say exactly how, can only offer a hackneyed saying - Necessity is the Mother of Invention - which in this case I think will prove apposite.
Yes, but the reason the hold-the-nose-but-Trump-anyway voters voted as such is because they perceived the alternative as worse. 'All' the Democrats have to do is offer a not-terrible candidate. Even someone as bad as Biden could beat Trump purely by not alienating half the country before he'd started.
Should also be noted that the Democrats haven't been exactly flawless in accepting the democratic process when it goes against them - from allegations about Russian influence to suggestions of illegality right up to threats of insurrection.
I agree with your optimism though. America will find a way.
No problem "noting" that the Dems are far from paragons but there really is no equivalence (or even close) to what we're looking at with the Trump-captured GOP.
So the clown continues to embarrass our country on the world stage.
I do hope Big_G and his ilk are happy.
These ilk are always the ones to watch for.
Whenever I see 'ilk' I can't help imagining a smaller relative of elk. So I have this pleasant picture of Big_G surrounded by happy looking deer-like creatures.
I am hoping - but not necessarily expecting - that after COP26, all the ilk, elk etc will be a bit happier.
You have hit a really funny spot for our family
While visiting Jasper in Canada some years ago we came across a family of elk, and wanting to get a close up photo it suddenly became apparent the female did not take this well and charged directly at me
I have never sprinted away so fast from anything in my life, before or after, and the female stopped just a few metres from catching me up
It amused my family watching, but we all agreed it could have been serious and ever since wherever I have been in the world, I have used telephoto lenses and paid attention to my distance and safety
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
At some point, millions of years ago, a few pieces of stinking slime crawled from the Sea and shouted to the Heavens "I am Man!"
Much more recently than that. And wasn't it "...Trump !" ?
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine went to a Republican barbecue in Texas, thinking it would be much the same as a Conservative barbecue in this country.
Wrong! He said that almost every conversation he had with them was completely outlandish.
Large elements of the party are in danger of becoming an American Taliban.
The poll from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute paints a troubling portrait of a growing segment of the public that is increasingly unmoored from reality as it embraces conspiracy theories about child abduction and stolen elections.
It found a deep divide between those who trust right-wing media outlets and the rest of the nation — and even a divide between those who trust Fox News and those who trust outlets like One America Network and Newsmax.
The poll found about three in ten Americans, 31 percent, believe the 2020 elections were stolen from Trump, including two-thirds of Republicans and a whopping 82 percent of those who trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.
Among those who trust far-right outlets like One America Network and Newsmax, 97 percent say they believe the election — which even Trump’s own cybersecurity and election security officials agreed was the safest and most secure ever conducted in the United States — was stolen.
One in five Americans believe in the core tenet of the QAnon conspiracy that “there is a storm coming soon,” while one in six believe the United States government is controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking ring.
The same share, 18 percent, say they agree with the statement that America has gotten so far off track that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”...
And it's all evangelicals too. Once you start believing in stuff without evidence, you can be fed any lie. Despite the US being founded on Enlightenment principles, the rationalist spirit of the Enlightenment never took deep root in the US population as it did in Western Europe.
Not all evangelicals are QAnon though and indeed plenty of black evangelicals will have voted for Biden-Harris.
The inescapable conclusion from his comments is that HYFUD is arguably the site's most fervent republican.
The notion that the Crown could veto legislation, irrespective of manifesto contents, beyond defending our democracy in extremis (govt extending life of a Parliament except in war, declaring one party state etc) is bewilderingly grotesque. There's a reason why the last veto was in 1708.
Such an action would be a direct assault on our constitution. No party would even conceive of supporting it: a Republic established within 12 months max. It ain't going to happen.
Charles will be a model constitutional monarch. That really is the end of it.
It wouldn't. We do not have a written constitution, our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament in lawmaking.
The English civil war and the glorious revolution merely asserted that Parliament had to be used to make laws and raise taxes and make wars, we could not be governed by the divine right of Kings alone.
However it did not mean that the monarch could have no role in lawmaking whatsoever. If the monarch vetoed a bill which was not in the manifesto of the elected government it would not be unconstitutional even if maybe not advisable. Whatever the parties in Parliament thought about it they could not stop it.
However even if Charles is unlikely to do even that there is certainly absolutely nothing in our constitution to stop the monarch giving their personal views on matters of policy or politics, which was my original point
We do have a constitution albeit an unwritten one. Numerous learned tomes have been written on it: you could make an easy and readable start with Walter Bagehot.
It would be a truly moronic Monarch who started pontificating on poitically contentious or partisan issues. And a very short-lived reign too.
With the best will in the world, don't you ever pause and reflect on the implications of some of your outlandish assertions? On this one, Republicans couldn't have a better friend and ally than you. We Tory patriots, who genuinely cherish our constiutional monarchy, recoil in horror.
Bagehot is merely giving his opinion of what it is, it is still Crown in Parliament on which our constitution is based and Crown in Parliament alone.
You need both Parliament's support and the Crown's agreement to make laws.
You can rant as much as you want and try and muzzle Prince Charles speaking on climate change. However constitutionally there is nothing whatsoever to stop it.
I already said if the monarch continually said very unpopular things or vetoed manifesto commitments and popular things becoming law there would be a problem.
If the monarch says things most agree with, like on climate change, or even if they vetoed unpopular bills not in the government's manifesto, there would be no problem whatsoever. Either constitutionally or with the public
"If the monarch says things most agree with, like on climate change, or even if they vetoed unpopular bills not in the government's manifesto, there would be no problem whatsoever. Either constitutionally or with the public".
Utterly and tragically delusional. Stick to the park benches and the allotments.
Is it? If a future government passed a deeply unpopular bill through Parliament to, say, allow development in our National Parks beyond just exceptional circumstances which was not in its manifesto and which Prince Charles vetoed I expect he would have the full support of most of the public on that even if it annoyed senior politicians
One final go and that's it from me. I can only do so much for King, country, party and pb.
So, let's take your example. Suppose this was a Tory govt with a Commons majority who passed such legislation and the King vetoed it. The Government would of course resign and its MPs and party activists would be outraged. That's TORY activists. Now, would Labour take office in these circumstances? Absolutely not, and indeed the veto would be grist to the mill of their Republicanism.
So off we jolly well go to a general election with ALL parties (including LibDems, SNP, Greens, SDLP - I'll possibly give you the DUP) fighting it on the platform of unelected, unaccountable monarch vs Parliamentary democracy. So, whoever wins, the King loses with abdication at best and abolition altogether most likely.
It is quite absurd that this has to be explained to you. And of course it will never, ever happen.
I'm sorry John, but you're wrong.
If a Conservative government were to pass a measure that the Monarch would veto, then they wouldn't be a Conservative government! It is one of the core tenets of True Conservatism to be a monarchist, and no monarchist would pass a Bill that the Monarch could not give assent to.
I agree. If the royals can't stay out of politics, we might as well have an elected president instead.
I disagree, there is nothing wrong with the royals speaking on matters where there is general agreement, like tackling climate change.
Indeed Prince Charles has been campaigning for the environment for decades, even before it was fashionable.
I have no problem with Charles speaking out a bit more on issues than his mother did when he takes the throne, Parliament still decides and makes the laws but no reason the Head of State cannot make remarks on issues like climate change.
The difference with an elected Head of State like the French or US President however is they directly propose legislation to their legislature and send troops to war and in the US of course the President can veto and amend legislation passed by Congress, even popular bills.
The monarch in the UK has not done that since the English civil war and glorious revolution
Nope.
Our monarch is not allowed to opine on anyone's lifestyle especially if they are advocating a lifestyle which is likely to increase costs or deny certain people access on account of financial privation.
They are.
The Prince of Wales practices what he preaches, he produces organic food, the Duchy of Cornwall creates communities like Pundbury based on traditional architecture and employing local people.
Don't be absurd. Not everyone can afford to have their Aston Martin converted to electric. Monarchs are not allowed to advocate anything that might increase costs for the nation.
If you can afford an Aston Martin you almost certainly can afford to convert it to electric.
Monarchs in my view can advocate anything they want as long as they do not veto any bills which were in the elected government's manifesto
I understand. And your views are wrong. They are not allowed to do certain things which include any reference to the disparity of wealth between them and the country. Advocating a particular lifestyle is one such.
I'm happy for Charles to advocate whatever lifestyle he wants.
He should be running for Parliament in order to do so.
I'm certain our own @Charles would be outraged at someone not in Parliament advocating politics given his loathing of Rashford doing so. I'm sure its not just successful footballers but also Princes of the land that should be running for Parliament if they wish to engage in politics.
Certainly its much worse to have unelected monarchs being political than footballers.
Prince Charles would be wise to avoid partisan politics without an elected mandate, yes.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
Someone like a teacher you mean?
Yeah, a good teacher. (my physics teacher for instance was very good - I did very well in my physics Higher thanks to her).
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
Still I do like the idea of us in the future becoming creatures who will look back at us and go, "aw sweet". Such an interesting topic, evolution. My sense is it's one of those understood by relatively few but often kind of misrepresented because many more than those few are also interested - since it IS so interesting - and think they have the gist of it when they haven't, quite. (Don't mean you, btw, I mean everyone). I really am tempted to devote some proper time to it rather than using a 10 minute skim surf to write a sideways PB post. If I devote some proper time to it, I reckon I can get to a point where I think I've got the gist of it and almost certainly haven't, quite.
Have you read this book? I found it utterly thrilling, and still the best book I have read on evolution with a particular focus on how humans came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale
Ta. If I can rediscover the reading habit - which is a goal - it'll be no problem to include that one. I read his God Delusion a few years ago. Polemic not science, that, though. Enjoyed it but found it a bit 'breaking butterfly on wheel' if you know what I mean.
Interesting that people read those books. I think we are all aware of the role that religion has played throughout history but to read a book about the existence of god is strange.
If you believe, then you wouldn't read it because god exists and if you don't believe, then you wouldn't read it because god doesn't exist.
A 500-page book wouldn't work in either case.
It was an ok book but in essence what it was was him, the Prof, bringing all of his considerable powers of logic to bear on showing how something that's clearly illogical violates all the rules of logic. It was a bit gratuitous. Also not very deep since it just set the thing up on his plane and his terms and then knocked it down in about a hundred different ways when just one would have done the job, or rather that job.
I believe the daft old bugger opined that it's not really possible to be both religious and a scientist. Given there's a large body of empirical evidence to show that's wrong, he's not much of a scientist himself.
So the clown continues to embarrass our country on the world stage.
I do hope Big_G and his ilk are happy.
These ilk are always the ones to watch for.
Whenever I see 'ilk' I can't help imagining a smaller relative of elk. So I have this pleasant picture of Big_G surrounded by happy looking deer-like creatures.
I am hoping - but not necessarily expecting - that after COP26, all the ilk, elk etc will be a bit happier.
ilk or elk, they never seem to get mentioned except when they've been involved in something exceedingly dodgy
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
After "The Saudi Arabia of wind" and being in Downing Street in 2060, I'm going with no.
Oh you are a bore aren't you?
What on earth is wrong with saying the Saudi Arabia of wind. Its quite an appropriate thing to say.
Because it's bollocks. The Saudi Arabia of wind, if such a term is appropriate at all, is Chile.
I would have thought it was Kansas, with all the cows there.
I don't think it is bollocks though. My understanding is that the UK has the greatest potential for offshore wind in the world. This is due to the unique combination of a) being pretty windy to start with, though perhaps not as windy as, say, New Zealand (or Chile) and b) having a huge area of not-particularly deep sea. Chile's problem, for example, is that its coastal shelf disappears into the depths of the Pacific pretty quickly.
It is somewhat academic. Both are countries with massive capacity for wind, and the ability to meet all their energy needs on a macro level at least (i.e. once you set aside fluctuations in the weather). Possibly dozens of other countries also meet this criterion (Norway, Ireland, Argentina...)
But I don't think the Saudi Arabia of wind is unreasonable.
Either the switching of cars was part of a very cunning plan, or the police stitched him up good and proper.
It is completely bizarre, he managed to drive past 25 CCTV cameras both ways and was never caught on any of them.
He managed to abduct his wife from a busy walkway at 9 a.m. on a workday morning with no one seeing him or the car before, after or during the abduction.
If he was as cunning as they say then he would have made sure there was no blood left and would never have abducted her in his friends car (he owned up to the police staright away that he had borrowed his friends car on the day of the abduction)
And police scientists took three attempts to find blood that was easily seen with the naked eye in a car that had been valetted after the police's first two attempts to find stuff had yielded nothing.
And yet the BBC researcher who examined the case later expressed herself satisfied. I certainly feel that there's more than was reported in the piece you posted.
There is more but nothing that benefits the prosecution case. If he did do it he pulled off an incredible series of events.
One of the reports said he was jailed for "a minimum of 16 years". Will he ever get out if he doesn't say where the body is? Surely there is a defined jail term isn't there?
I dont think he will ever get out, he has to admit he did it to get parole, and he won't. He has been a model prisoner and has been in a open prison for a while now, which indicates that the Prison service do not see him as a threat. If he did admit it and give the location of the body then he would get released pretty quickly.
If he didn't kill her then he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
There is an excellent book The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice by Bob Woffinden. Glyn Razzell's case is chapter 1
Which is a terrible situation. The state can’t admit that they might occasionally have made a mistake. He can’t possibly admit to killing his wife, if in fact he didn’t.
The blood is the thing that got me, the police searched the car twice looking for blood, the second time in controlled conditions where they had the car for a few days. They did not find any blood at all and returned the car to its owner who had it cleaned inside and out. What made the police take the car in again for a 3rd time? Did they think the police scientists who checked the car over throughly on the 2nd time were incompetent or were they tipped off that they would find blood if they looked at the car again. Because the blood they found was clearly visible to the naked eye. I know police investigations can be flawed, but if they are looking for blood in a vehicle coming from a dead body and it is clearly visible to the naked eye, how would they miss it, and why would the police think they must have missed it, to bring the car in again, after it has been cleaned.
In his police interview, the police told Glyn Razzell that the blood staining found in the boot was heavy, yet multiple police scientists did not see it when they were specifically looking for it.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
Still I do like the idea of us in the future becoming creatures who will look back at us and go, "aw sweet". Such an interesting topic, evolution. My sense is it's one of those understood by relatively few but often kind of misrepresented because many more than those few are also interested - since it IS so interesting - and think they have the gist of it when they haven't, quite. (Don't mean you, btw, I mean everyone). I really am tempted to devote some proper time to it rather than using a 10 minute skim surf to write a sideways PB post. If I devote some proper time to it, I reckon I can get to a point where I think I've got the gist of it and almost certainly haven't, quite.
Have you read this book? I found it utterly thrilling, and still the best book I have read on evolution with a particular focus on how humans came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale
Ta. If I can rediscover the reading habit - which is a goal - it'll be no problem to include that one. I read his God Delusion a few years ago. Polemic not science, that, though. Enjoyed it but found it a bit 'breaking butterfly on wheel' if you know what I mean.
Interesting that people read those books. I think we are all aware of the role that religion has played throughout history but to read a book about the existence of god is strange.
If you believe, then you wouldn't read it because god exists and if you don't believe, then you wouldn't read it because god doesn't exist.
A 500-page book wouldn't work in either case.
It was an ok book but in essence what it was was him, the Prof, bringing all of his considerable powers of logic to bear on showing how something that's clearly illogical violates all the rules of logic. It was a bit gratuitous. Also not very deep since it just set the thing up on his plane and his terms and then knocked it down in about a hundred different ways when just one would have done the job, or rather that job.
I believe the daft old bugger opined that it's not really possible to be both religious and a scientist. Given there's a large body of empirical evidence to show that's wrong, he's not much of a scientist himself.
Yes, you need more than logic - although I love logic - for this one. I'm not religious but I know people brighter and more dry and analytical than me who are.
World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.
World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.
500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.
50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.
There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.
The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.
Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
Something which is going to be a problem fairly soon (historically speaking) with or without man doing anything.
We suffer from having short racial memories and a short history. We have lived through a relatively stable period that has allowed civilisation to grow in an extremely unusual period of climate stability. This has meant we have planted much of our population in places where we should not have done. Places that would flood in the not too distant future even if man had never appeared on the planet. Moreover our failure to understand or ignore processes such as isostatic readjustment - and to take steps that have made it even worse in places like New Orleans means that we have simply added to our woes.
We are a short lived species lacking a proper sense of how much the world changes of its own accord. As such we will continue to believe we can do something to change it and will remain woefully unprepared for when it is finally realised that we can't.
There are sound economic reasons why human society has developed largely around coasts and rivers. How exactly do you propose to undo that?
You can't. We just have to accept that natural processes will eventually undo it for us with or without our agreement.
So what? Natural processes will eventually undo you and me and everybody else. That isn't generally regarded as an argument against the practise of medicine, which is merely a huge exercise in delaying the inevitable.
The point being argued is that it is possible to prevent either isostatic or eustatic sea level changes. It isn't. So your medicine argument is a straw man with nothing to do with this discussion.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
The inescapable conclusion from his comments is that HYFUD is arguably the site's most fervent republican.
The notion that the Crown could veto legislation, irrespective of manifesto contents, beyond defending our democracy in extremis (govt extending life of a Parliament except in war, declaring one party state etc) is bewilderingly grotesque. There's a reason why the last veto was in 1708.
Such an action would be a direct assault on our constitution. No party would even conceive of supporting it: a Republic established within 12 months max. It ain't going to happen.
Charles will be a model constitutional monarch. That really is the end of it.
It wouldn't. We do not have a written constitution, our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament in lawmaking.
The English civil war and the glorious revolution merely asserted that Parliament had to be used to make laws and raise taxes and make wars, we could not be governed by the divine right of Kings alone.
However it did not mean that the monarch could have no role in lawmaking whatsoever. If the monarch vetoed a bill which was not in the manifesto of the elected government it would not be unconstitutional even if maybe not advisable. Whatever the parties in Parliament thought about it they could not stop it.
However even if Charles is unlikely to do even that there is certainly absolutely nothing in our constitution to stop the monarch giving their personal views on matters of policy or politics, which was my original point
We do have a constitution albeit an unwritten one. Numerous learned tomes have been written on it: you could make an easy and readable start with Walter Bagehot.
It would be a truly moronic Monarch who started pontificating on poitically contentious or partisan issues. And a very short-lived reign too.
With the best will in the world, don't you ever pause and reflect on the implications of some of your outlandish assertions? On this one, Republicans couldn't have a better friend and ally than you. We Tory patriots, who genuinely cherish our constiutional monarchy, recoil in horror.
Bagehot is merely giving his opinion of what it is, it is still Crown in Parliament on which our constitution is based and Crown in Parliament alone.
You need both Parliament's support and the Crown's agreement to make laws.
You can rant as much as you want and try and muzzle Prince Charles speaking on climate change. However constitutionally there is nothing whatsoever to stop it.
I already said if the monarch continually said very unpopular things or vetoed manifesto commitments and popular things becoming law there would be a problem.
If the monarch says things most agree with, like on climate change, or even if they vetoed unpopular bills not in the government's manifesto, there would be no problem whatsoever. Either constitutionally or with the public
So the Bill of Rights, Petition of Rights, Representation of the People Acts, and Parliament Acts are nothing special? Bagehot and the written summary of Parliamentary convention is just this meaningless book?
Did someone once tell you that "it's just 'Crown in Parliament' " and you grabbed that as a simple and straightforward thing?
We have a constitution. It is uncodified, not unwritten. You have to go through a bunch of written documents (including the ones above).
All the above Rights and Acts ultimately needed agreement and assent of the Crown as well as Parliament to become Law and have any constitutional force
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
Still I do like the idea of us in the future becoming creatures who will look back at us and go, "aw sweet". Such an interesting topic, evolution. My sense is it's one of those understood by relatively few but often kind of misrepresented because many more than those few are also interested - since it IS so interesting - and think they have the gist of it when they haven't, quite. (Don't mean you, btw, I mean everyone). I really am tempted to devote some proper time to it rather than using a 10 minute skim surf to write a sideways PB post. If I devote some proper time to it, I reckon I can get to a point where I think I've got the gist of it and almost certainly haven't, quite.
Have you read this book? I found it utterly thrilling, and still the best book I have read on evolution with a particular focus on how humans came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale
Ta. If I can rediscover the reading habit - which is a goal - it'll be no problem to include that one. I read his God Delusion a few years ago. Polemic not science, that, though. Enjoyed it but found it a bit 'breaking butterfly on wheel' if you know what I mean.
Interesting that people read those books. I think we are all aware of the role that religion has played throughout history but to read a book about the existence of god is strange.
If you believe, then you wouldn't read it because god exists and if you don't believe, then you wouldn't read it because god doesn't exist.
A 500-page book wouldn't work in either case.
It was an ok book but in essence what it was was him, the Prof, bringing all of his considerable powers of logic to bear on showing how something that's clearly illogical violates all the rules of logic. It was a bit gratuitous. Also not very deep since it just set the thing up on his plane and his terms and then knocked it down in about a hundred different ways when just one would have done the job, or rather that job.
I believe the daft old bugger opined that it's not really possible to be both religious and a scientist. Given there's a large body of empirical evidence to show that's wrong, he's not much of a scientist himself.
I would have thought that for believers and non-believers a book about the existence of god would be of zero interest whatsoever.
A cultural history of religion yes, but a treatise on why god does or doesn't exist seems a waste of time.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
Bishops: fuck off. I was talking this morning about how my enthusiasm for addressing issues of man-made climate change is often dented by the messianic ramblings of climate change's greatest enthusiasts. Bishops fall into that category. You're not in the picture because you have any great understanding of science: you're here because you're the fella in the funny hat who in the unfortunate instance of the monarch keeling over gets to put a different hat on the head of the next one. That's it. Anything else, keep your nose out of it.
This also brings to mind what it would be like if our current admirably restrained unelected monarch were to be replaced by one who has is less mindful of the virtues of silence.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
Still I do like the idea of us in the future becoming creatures who will look back at us and go, "aw sweet". Such an interesting topic, evolution. My sense is it's one of those understood by relatively few but often kind of misrepresented because many more than those few are also interested - since it IS so interesting - and think they have the gist of it when they haven't, quite. (Don't mean you, btw, I mean everyone). I really am tempted to devote some proper time to it rather than using a 10 minute skim surf to write a sideways PB post. If I devote some proper time to it, I reckon I can get to a point where I think I've got the gist of it and almost certainly haven't, quite.
Have you read this book? I found it utterly thrilling, and still the best book I have read on evolution with a particular focus on how humans came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale
Ta. If I can rediscover the reading habit - which is a goal - it'll be no problem to include that one. I read his God Delusion a few years ago. Polemic not science, that, though. Enjoyed it but found it a bit 'breaking butterfly on wheel' if you know what I mean.
Interesting that people read those books. I think we are all aware of the role that religion has played throughout history but to read a book about the existence of god is strange.
If you believe, then you wouldn't read it because god exists and if you don't believe, then you wouldn't read it because god doesn't exist.
A 500-page book wouldn't work in either case.
It was an ok book but in essence what it was was him, the Prof, bringing all of his considerable powers of logic to bear on showing how something that's clearly illogical violates all the rules of logic. It was a bit gratuitous. Also not very deep since it just set the thing up on his plane and his terms and then knocked it down in about a hundred different ways when just one would have done the job, or rather that job.
I believe the daft old bugger opined that it's not really possible to be both religious and a scientist. Given there's a large body of empirical evidence to show that's wrong, he's not much of a scientist himself.
Have mentioned it before. But he also equated religion with belief in God/s with the power to intervene. So simply dumped Buddhism into the "not a religion" category from the off. Without any further investigation, explanation or caveating. Which, at the very least, is ignoring observations which don't fit your pre-conceived conclusions. And, for a "scientist" intellectually hugely dishonesst.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
Bishops: fuck off. I was talking this morning about how my enthusiasm for addressing issues of man-made climate change is often dented by the messianic ramblings of climate change's greatest enthusiasts. Bishops fall into that category. You're not in the picture because you have any great understanding of science: you're here because you're the fella in the funny hat who in the unfortunate instance of the monarch keeling over gets to put a different hat on the head of the next one. That's it. Anything else, keep your nose out of it.
This also brings to mind what it would be like if our current admirably restrained unelected monarch were to be replaced by one who has is less mindful of the virtues of silence.
And to conclude: bishops: fuck off.
Gosh Cookie is really bashing the bishop this afternoon...
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
"Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world"
He was certainly colourful, but didn't circulation dip from 85,000 to 60,000 under his stewardship?
Fed up with the job search, a software engineer created a ridiculous fake resume and got a 90% response rate https://boingboing.net/2021/11/01/fed-up-with-the-job-search-a-software-engineer-created-a-ridiculous-fake-resume-and-got-a-90-response-rate.html ...Experienced software engineer with a background of building scalable systems in the fintech, health, and adult entertainment industries. Team coffee maker - ensured team of 6 was fully caffeinated with Antarctican coffee beans ground to 14 nm particles Connected with Reid Hoffman on LinkedIn Organized team bonding through company potato sack race resulting in increased team bonding and cohesity Spearheaded Microsofters 4 Trump company rally...
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
“Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead”
Yes, an ex boss of mine was able to do this, and I thought he was the cleverest person I’d met. Other people I worked with seemed desperate to show how clever they were, but of Latin here and there as you say, at the expense of being understood, and I thought that made them seem insecure and a bit stupid
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
Bishops: fuck off. I was talking this morning about how my enthusiasm for addressing issues of man-made climate change is often dented by the messianic ramblings of climate change's greatest enthusiasts. Bishops fall into that category. You're not in the picture because you have any great understanding of science: you're here because you're the fella in the funny hat who in the unfortunate instance of the monarch keeling over gets to put a different hat on the head of the next one. That's it. Anything else, keep your nose out of it.
This also brings to mind what it would be like if our current admirably restrained unelected monarch were to be replaced by one who has is less mindful of the virtues of silence.
And to conclude: bishops: fuck off.
If you are a Christian like me you believe God ultimately created the earth, so obviously what the bishops have to say about this would again be very relevant
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
"Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world"
He was certainly colourful, but didn't circulation dip from 85,000 to 60,000 under his stewardship?
No. Quite the opposite, it reached a record circulation under Boris
"He leaves the magazine in better shape than it has ever been in its long and glorious history, both editorially and financially. Sales will hit a record 70,000 this December and the magazine has recorded another healthy profit in 2005. The editorial breadth and quality under his editorship has been unrivalled."
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
“Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead”
Yes, an ex boss of mine was able to do this, and I thought he was the cleverest person I’d met. Other people I worked with seemed desperate to show how clever they were, but of Latin here and there as you say, at the expense of being understood, and I thought that made them seem insecure and a bit stupid
This is exactly what I think about Johnson. When you interact with really smart people, you come away feeling like you are smarter thanks to the interaction. With Johnson you might feel amused by what he says but never enlightened.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
Surely if he was really clever he would be posting on PB, not running the country?
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
Bishops: fuck off. I was talking this morning about how my enthusiasm for addressing issues of man-made climate change is often dented by the messianic ramblings of climate change's greatest enthusiasts. Bishops fall into that category. You're not in the picture because you have any great understanding of science: you're here because you're the fella in the funny hat who in the unfortunate instance of the monarch keeling over gets to put a different hat on the head of the next one. That's it. Anything else, keep your nose out of it.
This also brings to mind what it would be like if our current admirably restrained unelected monarch were to be replaced by one who has is less mindful of the virtues of silence.
And to conclude: bishops: fuck off.
If you are a Christian like me you believe God ultimately created the earth, so obviously what the bishops have to say about this would again be very relevant
Plenty of Christians do absolutely fine without bishops and a human being as overlord of the C of E.
The inescapable conclusion from his comments is that HYFUD is arguably the site's most fervent republican.
The notion that the Crown could veto legislation, irrespective of manifesto contents, beyond defending our democracy in extremis (govt extending life of a Parliament except in war, declaring one party state etc) is bewilderingly grotesque. There's a reason why the last veto was in 1708.
Such an action would be a direct assault on our constitution. No party would even conceive of supporting it: a Republic established within 12 months max. It ain't going to happen.
Charles will be a model constitutional monarch. That really is the end of it.
It wouldn't. We do not have a written constitution, our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament in lawmaking.
The English civil war and the glorious revolution merely asserted that Parliament had to be used to make laws and raise taxes and make wars, we could not be governed by the divine right of Kings alone.
However it did not mean that the monarch could have no role in lawmaking whatsoever. If the monarch vetoed a bill which was not in the manifesto of the elected government it would not be unconstitutional even if maybe not advisable. Whatever the parties in Parliament thought about it they could not stop it.
However even if Charles is unlikely to do even that there is certainly absolutely nothing in our constitution to stop the monarch giving their personal views on matters of policy or politics, which was my original point
We do have a constitution albeit an unwritten one. Numerous learned tomes have been written on it: you could make an easy and readable start with Walter Bagehot.
It would be a truly moronic Monarch who started pontificating on poitically contentious or partisan issues. And a very short-lived reign too.
With the best will in the world, don't you ever pause and reflect on the implications of some of your outlandish assertions? On this one, Republicans couldn't have a better friend and ally than you. We Tory patriots, who genuinely cherish our constiutional monarchy, recoil in horror.
Bagehot is merely giving his opinion of what it is, it is still Crown in Parliament on which our constitution is based and Crown in Parliament alone.
You need both Parliament's support and the Crown's agreement to make laws.
You can rant as much as you want and try and muzzle Prince Charles speaking on climate change. However constitutionally there is nothing whatsoever to stop it.
I already said if the monarch continually said very unpopular things or vetoed manifesto commitments and popular things becoming law there would be a problem.
If the monarch says things most agree with, like on climate change, or even if they vetoed unpopular bills not in the government's manifesto, there would be no problem whatsoever. Either constitutionally or with the public
So the Bill of Rights, Petition of Rights, Representation of the People Acts, and Parliament Acts are nothing special? Bagehot and the written summary of Parliamentary convention is just this meaningless book?
Did someone once tell you that "it's just 'Crown in Parliament' " and you grabbed that as a simple and straightforward thing?
We have a constitution. It is uncodified, not unwritten. You have to go through a bunch of written documents (including the ones above).
Quite. It's not one thing or phrase read in isolation, theres a lot to it.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
Bishops: fuck off. I was talking this morning about how my enthusiasm for addressing issues of man-made climate change is often dented by the messianic ramblings of climate change's greatest enthusiasts. Bishops fall into that category. You're not in the picture because you have any great understanding of science: you're here because you're the fella in the funny hat who in the unfortunate instance of the monarch keeling over gets to put a different hat on the head of the next one. That's it. Anything else, keep your nose out of it.
This also brings to mind what it would be like if our current admirably restrained unelected monarch were to be replaced by one who has is less mindful of the virtues of silence.
And to conclude: bishops: fuck off.
If you are a Christian like me you believe God ultimately created the earth, so obviously what the bishops have to say about this would again be very relevant
If a bishop has real expertise in the matter, he is worth hearing. Mostly, they just utter platitudes.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
I've met him too. He is a prat.
Me too. And spent time with him behind the scenes. The effect he has on the public when he is doing his schtick is impressive. His performance, knowledge and insight when he's not in the public gaze, not so much.
Apple the best. They are causing Facebook real pain.
Apple’s decision to change the privacy settings of iPhones caused an estimated $9.85bn of revenues to evaporate in the second half of this year at Snap, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as their advertising businesses were shaken by the new rules.
Apple introduced its App Tracking Transparency policy in April, which forced apps to ask for permission before they tracked the behaviour of users to serve them personalised ads.
Most users have opted out, leaving advertisers in the dark about how to target them. Advertisers have responded by cutting back their spending at Snap, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and diverted their budgets elsewhere: in particular to Android phone users and to Apple’s own growing ad business.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
I agree. If the royals can't stay out of politics, we might as well have an elected president instead.
I disagree, there is nothing wrong with the royals speaking on matters where there is general agreement, like tackling climate change.
Indeed Prince Charles has been campaigning for the environment for decades, even before it was fashionable.
I have no problem with Charles speaking out a bit more on issues than his mother did when he takes the throne, Parliament still decides and makes the laws but no reason the Head of State cannot make remarks on issues like climate change.
The difference with an elected Head of State like the French or US President however is they directly propose legislation to their legislature and send troops to war and in the US of course the President can veto and amend legislation passed by Congress, even popular bills.
The monarch in the UK has not done that since the English civil war and glorious revolution
Nope.
Our monarch is not allowed to opine on anyone's lifestyle especially if they are advocating a lifestyle which is likely to increase costs or deny certain people access on account of financial privation.
They are.
The Prince of Wales practices what he preaches, he produces organic food, the Duchy of Cornwall creates communities like Pundbury based on traditional architecture and employing local people.
Don't be absurd. Not everyone can afford to have their Aston Martin converted to electric. Monarchs are not allowed to advocate anything that might increase costs for the nation.
If you can afford an Aston Martin you almost certainly can afford to convert it to electric.
Monarchs in my view can advocate anything they want as long as they do not veto any bills which were in the elected government's manifesto
I understand. And your views are wrong. They are not allowed to do certain things which include any reference to the disparity of wealth between them and the country. Advocating a particular lifestyle is one such.
I'm happy for Charles to advocate whatever lifestyle he wants.
He should be running for Parliament in order to do so.
I'm certain our own @Charles would be outraged at someone not in Parliament advocating politics given his loathing of Rashford doing so. I'm sure its not just successful footballers but also Princes of the land that should be running for Parliament if they wish to engage in politics.
Certainly its much worse to have unelected monarchs being political than footballers.
Charles will be our monarch and our Head of State by grace of God.
He is perfectly entitled therefore to give political opinions as long as he does not prevent manifesto commitments of the elected government going into law.
Rashford will not be our Head of State, I have no problem with him giving his views however even if I often disagree with them
Everyone is entitled to give their political opinions but Charles is the one person along with HMQ and William who should not.
The Queen has been successful precisely because she kept her counsel. If Charles wants to be political, then there's Parliament for that.
He is perfectly entitled to give political opinions.
The fact the Queen chose not to was her personal choice, there is nothing constitutionally to stop future monarchs doing so as long as they do not veto manifesto commitments of the party which formed the government in the elected Parliament being passed into law.
You cannot however constitutionally be monarch and be an elected representative in Parliament, the government operates in your own name but you cannot be PM or a member of it as monarch either
The monarch can express political views but it is not wise for them to do so
Apple the best. They are causing Facebook real pain.
Apple’s decision to change the privacy settings of iPhones caused an estimated $9.85bn of revenues to evaporate in the second half of this year at Snap, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as their advertising businesses were shaken by the new rules.
Apple introduced its App Tracking Transparency policy in April, which forced apps to ask for permission before they tracked the behaviour of users to serve them personalised ads.
Most users have opted out, leaving advertisers in the dark about how to target them. Advertisers have responded by cutting back their spending at Snap, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and diverted their budgets elsewhere: in particular to Android phone users and to Apple’s own growing ad business.
Asking for a friend, is Stanley Baldwin a non Tory?
He helped oust a monarch.
Oh for the days when you couldn't be a monarch because you were a fornicator and were going to going to marry a divorcee.
Stanley Baldwin was a monarchist, he believed in the institution of monarchy.
He simply replaced one monarch with another monarch, his brother, not a president, after the monarch married a divorcee which was not acceptable at the time.
Baldwin was a monarchist Tory, though he was keen on tariffs and not a great free trader and also supportive of appeasement, he still backed the monarchy and inherited wealth.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
Just that he seems really really clever to you perhaps? All being relative.
That's if you're being serious, which I slightly doubt. But anyway it's probably a definition thing here. If by "clever" you mean smarter than the average bear, then ok, no argument. He is. Course he is. Most senior politicians are. Almost all of them, I'd say. Patel is about the only one who springs to my mind who might not be. And (let's go balance) Corbyn maybe. He seems a bit lacking. But if you mean top drawer brain, a clever clever guy, then no. Boris Johnson isn't. He just isn't. Surely we can commune on that.
I agree. If the royals can't stay out of politics, we might as well have an elected president instead.
I disagree, there is nothing wrong with the royals speaking on matters where there is general agreement, like tackling climate change.
Indeed Prince Charles has been campaigning for the environment for decades, even before it was fashionable.
I have no problem with Charles speaking out a bit more on issues than his mother did when he takes the throne, Parliament still decides and makes the laws but no reason the Head of State cannot make remarks on issues like climate change.
The difference with an elected Head of State like the French or US President however is they directly propose legislation to their legislature and send troops to war and in the US of course the President can veto and amend legislation passed by Congress, even popular bills.
The monarch in the UK has not done that since the English civil war and glorious revolution
Nope.
Our monarch is not allowed to opine on anyone's lifestyle especially if they are advocating a lifestyle which is likely to increase costs or deny certain people access on account of financial privation.
They are.
The Prince of Wales practices what he preaches, he produces organic food, the Duchy of Cornwall creates communities like Pundbury based on traditional architecture and employing local people.
Don't be absurd. Not everyone can afford to have their Aston Martin converted to electric. Monarchs are not allowed to advocate anything that might increase costs for the nation.
If you can afford an Aston Martin you almost certainly can afford to convert it to electric.
Monarchs in my view can advocate anything they want as long as they do not veto any bills which were in the elected government's manifesto
I understand. And your views are wrong. They are not allowed to do certain things which include any reference to the disparity of wealth between them and the country. Advocating a particular lifestyle is one such.
I'm happy for Charles to advocate whatever lifestyle he wants.
He should be running for Parliament in order to do so.
I'm certain our own @Charles would be outraged at someone not in Parliament advocating politics given his loathing of Rashford doing so. I'm sure its not just successful footballers but also Princes of the land that should be running for Parliament if they wish to engage in politics.
Certainly its much worse to have unelected monarchs being political than footballers.
Charles will be our monarch and our Head of State by grace of God.
He is perfectly entitled therefore to give political opinions as long as he does not prevent manifesto commitments of the elected government going into law.
Rashford will not be our Head of State, I have no problem with him giving his views however even if I often disagree with them
Everyone is entitled to give their political opinions but Charles is the one person along with HMQ and William who should not.
The Queen has been successful precisely because she kept her counsel. If Charles wants to be political, then there's Parliament for that.
He is perfectly entitled to give political opinions.
The fact the Queen chose not to was her personal choice, there is nothing constitutionally to stop future monarchs doing so as long as they do not veto manifesto commitments of the party which formed the government in the elected Parliament being passed into law.
You cannot however constitutionally be monarch and be an elected representative in Parliament, the government operates in your own name but you cannot be PM or a member of it as monarch either
The monarch can express political views but it is not wise for them to do so
A lot of our constitution is that way, hence so much done by convention.
You can, but should you, is a powerful question and limited on power, when everyone plays ball and doesnt treat politics and power as a football match.
Asking for a friend, is Stanley Baldwin a non Tory?
He helped oust a monarch.
Oh for the days when you couldn't be a monarch because you were a fornicator and were going to going to marry a divorcee.
I thought they were all fornicators. It was the divorcee bit that seems to have rankled. Strange given that was how the dynasty was founded.
Yeah, it has always bugged me that in 1936 marrying a divorced person was incompatible with being Supreme Governor of the Church of England yet were people unaware why the Church of England was founded.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
Bishops: fuck off. I was talking this morning about how my enthusiasm for addressing issues of man-made climate change is often dented by the messianic ramblings of climate change's greatest enthusiasts. Bishops fall into that category. You're not in the picture because you have any great understanding of science: you're here because you're the fella in the funny hat who in the unfortunate instance of the monarch keeling over gets to put a different hat on the head of the next one. That's it. Anything else, keep your nose out of it.
This also brings to mind what it would be like if our current admirably restrained unelected monarch were to be replaced by one who has is less mindful of the virtues of silence.
And to conclude: bishops: fuck off.
If you are a Christian like me you believe God ultimately created the earth, so obviously what the bishops have to say about this would again be very relevant
Well, I suppose Bishops have to make sure that they get a piece of the action selling indulgences carbon credits.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
Still I do like the idea of us in the future becoming creatures who will look back at us and go, "aw sweet". Such an interesting topic, evolution. My sense is it's one of those understood by relatively few but often kind of misrepresented because many more than those few are also interested - since it IS so interesting - and think they have the gist of it when they haven't, quite. (Don't mean you, btw, I mean everyone). I really am tempted to devote some proper time to it rather than using a 10 minute skim surf to write a sideways PB post. If I devote some proper time to it, I reckon I can get to a point where I think I've got the gist of it and almost certainly haven't, quite.
Have you read this book? I found it utterly thrilling, and still the best book I have read on evolution with a particular focus on how humans came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale
Ta. If I can rediscover the reading habit - which is a goal - it'll be no problem to include that one. I read his God Delusion a few years ago. Polemic not science, that, though. Enjoyed it but found it a bit 'breaking butterfly on wheel' if you know what I mean.
Interesting that people read those books. I think we are all aware of the role that religion has played throughout history but to read a book about the existence of god is strange.
If you believe, then you wouldn't read it because god exists and if you don't believe, then you wouldn't read it because god doesn't exist.
A 500-page book wouldn't work in either case.
It was an ok book but in essence what it was was him, the Prof, bringing all of his considerable powers of logic to bear on showing how something that's clearly illogical violates all the rules of logic. It was a bit gratuitous. Also not very deep since it just set the thing up on his plane and his terms and then knocked it down in about a hundred different ways when just one would have done the job, or rather that job.
I believe the daft old bugger opined that it's not really possible to be both religious and a scientist. Given there's a large body of empirical evidence to show that's wrong, he's not much of a scientist himself.
Have mentioned it before. But he also equated religion with belief in God/s with the power to intervene. So simply dumped Buddhism into the "not a religion" category from the off. Without any further investigation, explanation or caveating. Which, at the very least, is ignoring observations which don't fit your pre-conceived conclusions. And, for a "scientist" intellectually hugely dishonesst.
More poisonously, he also campaigned for individuals who did not meet his requirements to be sacked.
Asking for a friend, is Stanley Baldwin a non Tory?
He helped oust a monarch.
Oh for the days when you couldn't be a monarch because you were a fornicator and were going to going to marry a divorcee.
I thought they were all fornicators. It was the divorcee bit that seems to have rankled. Strange given that was how the dynasty was founded.
Yeah, it has always bugged me that in 1936 marrying a divorced person was incompatible with being Supreme Governor of the Church of England yet were people unaware why the Church of England was founded.
Henry VIII was technically a virgin when he married Anne Boleyn under Church of England law as the Church was not founded when he married Catherine of Aragon.
Much as Boris was a virgin until he married Carrie under Catholic law as his previous marriage ceremonies were not Roman Catholic
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
In what respect is Boris "not clever"
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever. SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
Clever or just well educated? There is a world of difference. I ask seriously being one of the few here apparently who are not on intimate terms with him.
Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?
Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.
In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
I think that the best sign of intelligence is the ability to explain things in a jargon free manner that could be understood by a normal 12 year old.
Asking for a friend, is Stanley Baldwin a non Tory?
He helped oust a monarch.
Oh for the days when you couldn't be a monarch because you were a fornicator and were going to going to marry a divorcee.
I doubt if being a fornicator is a problem. Most members of the Guelph/Windsor have the sexual appetites of goats.
A few years ago there was picture of a letter to The Times or Telegraph in 1937 which pretty much said fornication by the King was the sign of depravity and could lead to bestiality and homosexualty in the masses because of the King-Emperor's bad example.
Comments
The Saudi Arabia of wind, if such a term is appropriate at all, is Chile.
I am hoping - but not necessarily expecting - that after COP26, all the ilk, elk etc will be a bit happier.
The JohnO who has been a Tory his entire adult life and you know a Tory councillor/council leader for many years.
John is in fact the primus inter pares of PB Tories.
O Tempora O Mores
Did someone once tell you that "it's just 'Crown in Parliament' " and you grabbed that as a simple and straightforward thing?
We have a constitution. It is uncodified, not unwritten. You have to go through a bunch of written documents (including the ones above).
Anyway England need 40 from the last 3 overs for a good score
If a Conservative government were to pass a measure that the Monarch would veto, then they wouldn't be a Conservative government! It is one of the core tenets of True Conservatism to be a monarchist, and no monarchist would pass a Bill that the Monarch could not give assent to.
Your scenario is therefore moot.
While visiting Jasper in Canada some years ago we came across a family of elk, and wanting to get a close up photo it suddenly became apparent the female did not take this well and charged directly at me
I have never sprinted away so fast from anything in my life, before or after, and the female stopped just a few metres from catching me up
It amused my family watching, but we all agreed it could have been serious and ever since wherever I have been in the world, I have used telephoto lenses and paid attention to my distance and safety
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1455177379979137030
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s here at COP too - tells me leaders will be ‘cursed’ if they don’t reach agreement in next fortnight, and suggests failure to act would be possibly more grave than leaders who ignored warnings about the Nazis in the 30s
It should be noted every time someone uses the off topic button it sends an email to OGH and Robert.
People who misuse this occasionally get smote for misusing the off topic button.
Scholarship to Eton
Oxford degree
Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year
Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too
Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected
Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister
In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series
Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
(my physics teacher for instance was very good - I did very well in my physics Higher thanks to her).
Given there's a large body of empirical evidence to show that's wrong, he's not much of a scientist himself.
It is somewhat academic. Both are countries with massive capacity for wind, and the ability to meet all their energy needs on a macro level at least (i.e. once you set aside fluctuations in the weather). Possibly dozens of other countries also meet this criterion (Norway, Ireland, Argentina...)
But I don't think the Saudi Arabia of wind is unreasonable.
In his police interview, the police told Glyn Razzell that the blood staining found in the boot was heavy, yet multiple police scientists did not see it when they were specifically looking for it.
This total isn't going to be enough, I fear?
Hmm. 1 over left. Need 15-20
SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
A cultural history of religion yes, but a treatise on why god does or doesn't exist seems a waste of time.
I was talking this morning about how my enthusiasm for addressing issues of man-made climate change is often dented by the messianic ramblings of climate change's greatest enthusiasts. Bishops fall into that category. You're not in the picture because you have any great understanding of science: you're here because you're the fella in the funny hat who in the unfortunate instance of the monarch keeling over gets to put a different hat on the head of the next one. That's it. Anything else, keep your nose out of it.
This also brings to mind what it would be like if our current admirably restrained unelected monarch were to be replaced by one who has is less mindful of the virtues of silence.
And to conclude: bishops: fuck off.
So simply dumped Buddhism into the "not a religion" category from the off. Without any further investigation, explanation or caveating.
Which, at the very least, is ignoring observations which don't fit your pre-conceived conclusions. And, for a "scientist" intellectually hugely dishonesst.
He was certainly colourful, but didn't circulation dip from 85,000 to 60,000 under his stewardship?
https://boingboing.net/2021/11/01/fed-up-with-the-job-search-a-software-engineer-created-a-ridiculous-fake-resume-and-got-a-90-response-rate.html
...Experienced software engineer with a background of building scalable systems in the fintech, health, and adult entertainment industries.
Team coffee maker - ensured team of 6 was fully caffeinated with Antarctican coffee beans ground to 14 nm particles
Connected with Reid Hoffman on LinkedIn
Organized team bonding through company potato sack race resulting in increased team bonding and cohesity
Spearheaded Microsofters 4 Trump company rally...
Yes, an ex boss of mine was able to do this, and I thought he was the cleverest person I’d met. Other people I worked with seemed desperate to show how clever they were, but of Latin here and there as you say, at the expense of being understood, and I thought that made them seem insecure and a bit stupid
But decent effort from Buttler.
"He leaves the magazine in better shape than it has ever been in its long and glorious history, both editorially and financially. Sales will hit a record 70,000 this December and the magazine has recorded another healthy profit in 2005. The editorial breadth and quality under his editorship has been unrivalled."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/09/pressandpublishing.politics
The whole joy of this site is that we veer off-topic all the time, and at every opportunity
He helped oust a monarch.
Oh for the days when you couldn't be a monarch because you were a fornicator and were going to going to marry a divorcee.
He simply replaced one monarch with another monarch, his brother, not a president, after the monarch married a divorcee which was not acceptable at the time.
Baldwin was a monarchist Tory, though he was keen on tariffs and not a great free trader and also supportive of appeasement, he still backed the monarchy and inherited wealth.
That's if you're being serious, which I slightly doubt. But anyway it's probably a definition thing here. If by "clever" you mean smarter than the average bear, then ok, no argument. He is. Course he is. Most senior politicians are. Almost all of them, I'd say. Patel is about the only one who springs to my mind who might not be. And (let's go balance) Corbyn maybe. He seems a bit lacking. But if you mean top drawer brain, a clever clever guy, then no. Boris Johnson isn't. He just isn't. Surely we can commune on that.
You can, but should you, is a powerful question and limited on power, when everyone plays ball and doesnt treat politics and power as a football match.
Much as Boris was a virgin until he married Carrie under Catholic law as his previous marriage ceremonies were not Roman Catholic
He could have got it last time if the Aussies had set us a more challenging target.
His average must have been aided by this tournament.