It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
It's semi-sarcastic. But the argument in the 19th Cents was that by keeping control of CoE as a broad church that kept fairly quiet doctrinally, the government would be keeping region from becoming a problem again.
Left to themselves, the religious types have a bad habit of getting excessively religious.
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
Which lands does Orban have his eye on? Ukraine is much bigger than Hungary so I doubt he'd fair better there than the Russians have.
A popular poster or bumper sticker in Hungary is the map of 'Greater Hungary' with all the lost lands 'stolen' from them at Versailles. Mostly now in Romania
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
There were shops in Moscow that didn't accept Roubles, only hard (western) currency, or at least there were in 1986 when I was there.
Indeed. IIRC the way it worked was that you had to get roubles converted to vouchers by the state (if you were a Soviet Citizen). If you were an ordinary citizen, you got a certain rate. And quality was extremely limited. If you were a high official, you got another rate and limited amounts could be converted.
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
They weren't explicit about it though?
It was a command economy, remember. You didn't chose your hospital or clinic. You got sent there. So ordinary citizens got sent to the low end hospital....
Yes, there were lots of attempts at string pulling, getting relatives in high positions to try and get a place etc etc.
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I am reminded of the comedy of Accenture. Arthur Anderson forced Anderson Consulting to change their name - they claimed that it was damaging their brand, Anderson Consulting became Accenture just before Arthur Anderson fell down and went boon over Enron.
It was more that Andersen Consulting wanted independence as they were earning more, and could see they would earn much much more over the future as well. The name change was part of the settlement. The accountants would have been quite happy to keep the consultants in the family tent subsidising them.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
It's semi-sarcastic. But the argument in the 19th Cents was that by keeping control of CoE as a broad church that kept fairly quiet doctrinally, the government would be keeping region from becoming a problem again.
Left to themselves, the religious types have a bad habit of getting excessively religious.
Thanks, that's an interesting insight. Better to have the Puseyites etc. inside the nave p ... er, better in than out, and so on.
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
There were shops in Moscow that didn't accept Roubles, only hard (western) currency, or at least there were in 1986 when I was there.
Indeed. IIRC the way it worked was that you had to get roubles converted to vouchers by the state (if you were a Soviet Citizen). If you were an ordinary citizen, you got a certain rate. And quality was extremely limited. If you were a high official, you got another rate and limited amounts could be converted.
The "official" rate made the rouble worth more than the pound: in practice you could get about five roubles to the pound. We we also told we couldn't take any roubles out of the country.
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
There were shops in Moscow that didn't accept Roubles, only hard (western) currency, or at least there were in 1986 when I was there.
Indeed. IIRC the way it worked was that you had to get roubles converted to vouchers by the state (if you were a Soviet Citizen). If you were an ordinary citizen, you got a certain rate. And quality was extremely limited. If you were a high official, you got another rate and limited amounts could be converted.
The "official" rate made the rouble worth more than the pound: in practice you could get about five roubles to the pound. We we also told we couldn't take any roubles out of the country.
Yup - and these kind of official exchange rates were enforced between Russia and Eastern Europe. One of the reasons that Soviet domination was so resented was the way that they used such fakes rates to enrich Russia at the expense of the "Satellite Nations".
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
It's semi-sarcastic. But the argument in the 19th Cents was that by keeping control of CoE as a broad church that kept fairly quiet doctrinally, the government would be keeping region from becoming a problem again.
Left to themselves, the religious types have a bad habit of getting excessively religious.
Thanks, that's an interesting insight. Better to have the Puseyites etc. inside the nave p ... er, better in than out, and so on.
Yup - so we have a CoE that ranges from Bells-And-Smells-Catholics-Without-The-Pope to some quite Evangelical types.
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
I am 150% sure that once Her Majesty passes on there is going to be so much shit flung between Harry and William. The accusations from the former are too serious to be bottled up, and he needs it to be relevant to boot, Charles will try not to get involved as King, but William can hardly not counter accusations so the briefings will be on.
I'd be a bit wary if I were Harry, TBH. We already know that quite a lot of what was said in that Oprah interview turned out not to be accurate and they've already had to apologise to a court for saying things that turned out not to be true. Accusations of racism are pretty libellous, if untrue. Either he puts up - in which case whoever is accused is going to fight back - or he shuts up.
And remember there were also the staff who left. Now it could be well be that the staff were completely at fault or that there was fault on both sides. Who knows? But if they get attacked why should they remain silent? Can Harry and Meghan say that their behaviour has always and everywhere been utterly perfect? No. So they'd best be advised to stay quiet and enjoy the life they've chosen with their family. Carrying on with this family spat in public rather gives the impression that, instead of wanting to opt out of royal life, he's a bit cross that he was not treated with more importance. Not sure if that's true. It's difficult being a second son in a hierarchical family and he seems to have made the right choice for him. At any event, at some point - and certainly by the time you are 40 - you need to let past disputes and slights go and get on with your life, away from your family.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
There is no reason to assume that disestablishing the CoE would mean that the established church would de facto become the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot think of a country even where the majority faith is Roman Catholic and that church is 'established' in the way the CoE is in England. The Irish constitution only requires the state to support freedom of religion. In the USA there is an unestablished Anglcan Church whilst the largest single demonination is RC. Neither are established - the first ammendment to the constitution rules out establishment. And RC canon law precludes clerics occupying positions of civil governance.
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
There were shops in Moscow that didn't accept Roubles, only hard (western) currency, or at least there were in 1986 when I was there.
Indeed. IIRC the way it worked was that you had to get roubles converted to vouchers by the state (if you were a Soviet Citizen). If you were an ordinary citizen, you got a certain rate. And quality was extremely limited. If you were a high official, you got another rate and limited amounts could be converted.
The "official" rate made the rouble worth more than the pound: in practice you could get about five roubles to the pound. We we also told we couldn't take any roubles out of the country.
Had a similar experience in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 1985. The waiters etc wanted tips in Western currency.
Been reading through while waiting for Mrs C to have an Outpatient procedure. Satisfactory, I’m glad to say; one more in three months and she’ll be discharged.
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I wonder if they have a credible valuation for the brand from before it was completely destroyed that they can use as part of a claim.
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
P&O Cruises is a far longer established business than P&O Ferries. They’ll keep the brand and keep pointing out the difference. IF they were daft enough to change the brand they’d reverse takeover P&O into Princess, the much bigger line they ran in the US before the Carnival merger.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
The purpose of the Establishment of the Church of England is to avoid too much religion getting into the thing.
At least one candidate for Archbishop of Cantebury was rejected, politically, on the basis that he was a bit too much of a God Botherer
But if it was disestablished then it wouldn't matter any more would it? No Bishs in the HoL, and the C of E would be as relevant and as irrelevant as, say, the Congregationalists or the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
[edit] So that seems a circular argument - you need establishment ti mitigate the dangerous moral initiatives that might reesult from establishment ...
There is no reason to assume that disestablishing the CoE would mean that the established church would de facto become the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot think of a country even where the majority faith is Roman Catholic and that church is 'established' in the way the CoE is in England. The Irish constitution only requires the state to support freedom of religion. In the USA there is an unestablished Anglcan Church whilst the largest single demonination is RC. Neither are established - the first ammendment to the constitution rules out establishment. And RC canon law precludes clerics occupying positions of civil governance.
I think that there would be a power struggle between the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelical wing. Which would end up with a lot of the Catholics heading off to Rome. Then the Modernisers in the middle would have to decide if they still wanted to hang with the Evangelicals.
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
The Communist party is used as a "tame opposition" by Putin. They get to come second in elections in return for not being stupid enough to try and win.
A theme is that they propose a policy that is Putin's policy, but turned up to 11. Then Putin comes along and says, we must be sensible....
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
I am 150% sure that once Her Majesty passes on there is going to be so much shit flung between Harry and William. The accusations from the former are too serious to be bottled up, and he needs it to be relevant to boot, Charles will try not to get involved as King, but William can hardly not counter accusations so the briefings will be on.
What's this Landrover thing, and why is it an issue?
(It sounds like people with no argument to make getting furious as a figleaf.)
And what is this "trapped in picaninny-land" thing?
That sounds like another figleaf by someone wanting mud to sling.
But do correct me.
OK, well -
mainly, I don't care about any of this. I am not trying to construct an argument or sling mud. Chill. What's interesting is the highly critical commentary from non-usual suspects like the torygraph and the BBC.
This should have been a slam dunk of a tour: radiant Peoples' Duchess, popular Baldy, throwbacks to popular and about to be jubileeing Queenie's earlier visits. What has spoiled it is the less-than-welcome from the locals, notably the Jamaican PM saying they want to go solo
Against that background things which would otherwise be fine, get re-examined. The Land Rover thing looks colonialist and patronising, and wtf is that painfully white outfit Baldy is in? Quite apart from the whole whiteness vibe, it reminds me of Baron Cohen in The Dictator. Ditto the kids through the fence scene; it is obviously completely innocent, but it is also, by pure bad luck a really striking image.
All of which is quite interesting for those interested in the future of the monarchy and the commonwealth.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
I am 150% sure that once Her Majesty passes on there is going to be so much shit flung between Harry and William. The accusations from the former are too serious to be bottled up, and he needs it to be relevant to boot, Charles will try not to get involved as King, but William can hardly not counter accusations so the briefings will be on.
What's this Landrover thing, and why is it an issue?
(It sounds like people with no argument to make getting furious as a figleaf.)
And what is this "trapped in picaninny-land" thing?
That sounds like another figleaf by someone wanting mud to sling.
But do correct me.
OK, well -
mainly, I don't care about any of this. I am not trying to construct an argument or sling mud. Chill. What's interesting is the highly critical commentary from non-usual suspects like the torygraph and the BBC.
This should have been a slam dunk of a tour: radiant Peoples' Duchess, popular Baldy, throwbacks to popular and about to be jubileeing Queenie's earlier visits. What has spoiled it is the less-than-welcome from the locals, notably the Jamaican PM saying they want to go solo
Against that background things which would otherwise be fine, get re-examined. The Land Rover thing looks colonialist and patronising, and wtf is that painfully white outfit Baldy is in? Quite apart from the whole whiteness vibe, it reminds me of Baron Cohen in The Dictator. Ditto the kids through the fence scene; it is obviously completely innocent, but it is also, by pure bad luck a really striking image.
All of which is quite interesting for those interested in the future of the monarchy and the commonwealth.
Yes the whole thing looks so outdated and outmoded.
The British monarchy seems to be doing its best to undo itself. When your Queen eventually dies that can only accelerate.
Seems low-key today, thanks, just sniffling and occasionally coughing, held at bay by good old aspirin - temperature gone, I think, but oximeter and thermometer arrive today (I see tht every good home should have them these days).
Dr Y kindly deduced right, I read it as saying spiders. 🤦♀️ I’m not saying you are wrong, Jon, you didn’t use quote I don’t know which specific post or point you are pointing to I got wrong. But posting In this thread I still had enough wits about me to point to allegory, like Chagall’s Fiddler. Help Farooq with his Butt’s for Ukraine mission. We are blessed to have posters who are on a mission. Sure, some of these photo ops from Caribbean tour don’t look not so much 21st century monarchy so need to be rethought. 😕
But it’s too easy to say “look how trendy I am, I’m a Republican”. Not everyone yet the majority posting “I’m a Republican” on here, are not republicans at all, imo, i am sure when they consider how much of our History, our Culture, the glue that binds us differences together as one nation made from all those previous lessons learned (some painfully) they also pour down the drain with the bath water - they deffo get second thoughts. It was all explained to me in other masterpiece of art I pointed to https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1614284574827.pdf As rather than be preachy or fail to say “why” - it’s way best to use allegory and metaphor to explain why, isn’t it?
Some of the other things I posted, dixy called prose, I copied from script of a play I was in I still have President Marmalade and the Devil that likely work much better when given as a speech in a play I admit.
So I Am not saying I got anything wrong.
I haven’t even looked at race cards. I have very much over slept. I think I’m having another time out today. I need to put my shades on and go outside and sunbathe in the park. 🥱
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I wonder if they have a credible valuation for the brand from before it was completely destroyed that they can use as part of a claim.
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
P&O Cruises is a far longer established business than P&O Ferries. They’ll keep the brand and keep pointing out the difference. IF they were daft enough to change the brand they’d reverse takeover P&O into Princess, the much bigger line they ran in the US before the Carnival merger.
They could always demerge as 'Peninsula Cruises' and 'Orient Cruises'.
Seems low-key today, thanks, just sniffling and occasionally coughing, held at bay by good old aspirin - temperature gone, I think, but oximeter and thermometer arrive today (I see tht every good home should have them these days).
Good to hear that. My blood pressure measuring machine got a good work out in the pandemic - for taking my mother-in-laws blood pressure. Needed regular checking because of some medicine she was taking, So the doctor would watch me do the test online, and read off the numbers....
Where is the place to go for startup business advice now - me not have been involved in one for a few years?
I'm looking at providing a smallish (£5-7k) top up investment for a small catering business that is nearly ready to launch, to be spent mainly on kit. My reward would be a modest % of the business, plus a small % of turnover from day one.
I need to find out things like the best places for a bank account, where the sweet spot is for how to handle investments wrt tax (eg is Rishi's 130% still available in these circs), and are startup grants available at present?.
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I wonder if they have a credible valuation for the brand from before it was completely destroyed that they can use as part of a claim.
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
P&O Cruises is a far longer established business than P&O Ferries. They’ll keep the brand and keep pointing out the difference. IF they were daft enough to change the brand they’d reverse takeover P&O into Princess, the much bigger line they ran in the US before the Carnival merger.
They could always demerge as 'Peninsula Cruises' and 'Orient Cruises'.
I have only known for about 30 seconds which peninsula it is - the Iberian one.
Dr Y kindly deduced right, I read it as saying spiders. 🤦♀️ I’m not saying you are wrong, Jon, you didn’t use quote I don’t know which specific post or point you are pointing to I got wrong. But posting In this thread I still had enough wits about me to point to allegory, like Chagall’s Fiddler. Help Farooq with his Butt’s for Ukraine mission. We are blessed to have posters who are on a mission. Sure, some of these photo ops from Caribbean tour don’t look not so much 21st century monarchy so need to be rethought. 😕
But it’s too easy to say “look how trendy I am, I’m a Republican”. Not everyone yet the majority posting “I’m a Republican” on here, are not republicans at all, imo, i am sure when they consider how much of our History, our Culture, the glue that binds us differences together as one nation made from all those previous lessons learned (some painfully) they also pour down the drain with the bath water - they deffo get second thoughts. It was all explained to me in other masterpiece of art I pointed to https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1614284574827.pdf As rather than be preachy or fail to say “why” - it’s way best to use allegory and metaphor to explain why, isn’t it?
Some of the other things I posted, dixy called prose, I copied from script of a play I was in I still have President Marmalade and the Devil that likely work much better when given as a speech in a play I admit.
So I Am not saying I got anything wrong.
I haven’t even looked at race cards. I have very much over slept. I think I’m having another time out today. I need to put my shades on and go outside and sunbathe in the park. 🥱
Thanks for last night's link to Lud-in-the-Mist. I found the first chapter quietly comforting. Hope it stays that way.
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
Those 3 category's look remarkably similar to 1984.
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
On their performance in Ukraine, any war Russia launched against Poland would be the most one-sided brutal hammering of a larger enemy by a theoretically smaller one since Israel handed the entirety of the Arab World their arses in the Six Day War.
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I wonder if they have a credible valuation for the brand from before it was completely destroyed that they can use as part of a claim.
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
P&O Cruises is a far longer established business than P&O Ferries. They’ll keep the brand and keep pointing out the difference. IF they were daft enough to change the brand they’d reverse takeover P&O into Princess, the much bigger line they ran in the US before the Carnival merger.
P&O might as well stand for Poison & Ordure for the reputation that it now has. The difference between P&O Cruises and P&O Ferries will be lost on many, and even for those who know the difference consciously, the subconscious association will still do massive damage.
This is a lost battle for P&O Cruises. The sooner they accept that the sooner they will be able to move on.
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I wonder if they have a credible valuation for the brand from before it was completely destroyed that they can use as part of a claim.
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
P&O Cruises is a far longer established business than P&O Ferries. They’ll keep the brand and keep pointing out the difference. IF they were daft enough to change the brand they’d reverse takeover P&O into Princess, the much bigger line they ran in the US before the Carnival merger.
They could always demerge as 'Peninsula Cruises' and 'Orient Cruises'.
I have only known for about 30 seconds which peninsula it is - the Iberian one.
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
Which lands does Orban have his eye on? Ukraine is much bigger than Hungary so I doubt he'd fair better there than the Russians have.
A popular poster or bumper sticker in Hungary is the map of 'Greater Hungary' with all the lost lands 'stolen' from them at Versailles. Mostly now in Romania
One of Orban's election rigging tactics is to give postal votes to all the Hungarians in Ukraine and Romania (among whom he is popular) but deny postal votes to Hungarians living in western Europe (among whom he is unpopular)
Another thing on Putin and his $14000 Italian coat. It's rather like the Jihadis wearing trainers and drinking Coke. If it weren't for the nukes we'd be laughing at him.
It also points to the complete incoherence of Russia's current political position. Under communism there was unity against the decadent west. So now the west remains decadent but please let us have all your best products, schools for our kids etc. This is why it can't become a gigantic North Korea - please compare North Korea 1950 to Russia 2022! As long as Putin is in power in Russia people will leave the country and that growing diaspora will still have connections to friends and family at home in this modern world of communications. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
During the "Communist" period in Russia, one of the perks of being at the top was access to Western products.
If you were in the elite, you went to different hospitals, equipped with Western equipment and medicines. There were, in fact, three grades of hospital/clinic. The top ones, the middle ones, and the low end. Access could be said to work on the basis of
Inner Party -> Top Outer Party -> Middle Proles -> Low end
This happened across a range of things. IIRC several Soviet leaders had suits from Saville Row.
Those 3 category's look remarkably similar to 1984.
That was slightly deliberate on my part. As in using the actual categories in 1984. Which were remarkably close to how things worked in the Soviet Union. And many other dictatorial states.
There was a comic moment when a British lefty tried to get his taxi driver (or similar) into the special clinic for foreigners and high party officials in Cuba, a couple of years back. He was apparently surprised to find class distinction in the classless society...
One that I always enjoyed was the shocked wailing of Harry Hopkins when Churchill turned up at a conference with a valet to carry his bag, a doctor and a bodyguard. Stalin rocked up on a personal train with dozens of servants and a literal regiment of bodyguards.....
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
Which lands does Orban have his eye on? Ukraine is much bigger than Hungary so I doubt he'd fair better there than the Russians have.
A popular poster or bumper sticker in Hungary is the map of 'Greater Hungary' with all the lost lands 'stolen' from them at Versailles. Mostly now in Romania
One of Orban's election rigging tactics is to give postal votes to all the Hungarians in Ukraine and Romania (among whom he is popular) but deny postal votes to Hungarians living in western Europe (among whom he is unpopular)
That's quite blatant. I can think of a couple of similar ruses for the Tories if they want to offer me some money.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
If Meghan and her walking dildo start throwing mud at William and Kate, after the Queen's death, they're obviously going to come off worst. Meghan's approval rating is -19%, and Harry is at par. William and Kate are at +54%.
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
On their performance in Ukraine, any war Russia launched against Poland would be the most one-sided brutal hammering of a larger enemy by a theoretically smaller one since Israel handed the entirety of the Arab World their arses in the Six Day War.
Erm, don't they have to get through Ukr to attack Poland?
Dr Y kindly deduced right, I read it as saying spiders. 🤦♀️ I’m not saying you are wrong, Jon, you didn’t use quote I don’t know which specific post or point you are pointing to I got wrong. But posting In this thread I still had enough wits about me to point to allegory, like Chagall’s Fiddler. Help Farooq with his Butt’s for Ukraine mission. We are blessed to have posters who are on a mission. Sure, some of these photo ops from Caribbean tour don’t look not so much 21st century monarchy so need to be rethought. 😕
But it’s too easy to say “look how trendy I am, I’m a Republican”. Not everyone yet the majority posting “I’m a Republican” on here, are not republicans at all, imo, i am sure when they consider how much of our History, our Culture, the glue that binds us differences together as one nation made from all those previous lessons learned (some painfully) they also pour down the drain with the bath water - they deffo get second thoughts. It was all explained to me in other masterpiece of art I pointed to https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1614284574827.pdf As rather than be preachy or fail to say “why” - it’s way best to use allegory and metaphor to explain why, isn’t it?
Some of the other things I posted, dixy called prose, I copied from script of a play I was in I still have President Marmalade and the Devil that likely work much better when given as a speech in a play I admit.
So I Am not saying I got anything wrong.
I haven’t even looked at race cards. I have very much over slept. I think I’m having another time out today. I need to put my shades on and go outside and sunbathe in the park. 🥱
Thanks for last night's link to Lud-in-the-Mist. I found the first chapter quietly comforting. Hope it stays that way.
It won’t I’m afraid. On every page is threat of coming menace, and it sometimes directly questions you if you actually understand.
It reminds me of Ibsen. I find Ibsen plays very easy to read, yet they all teach us something rather complicated we may have overlooked, do you know what I mean?
I think the town of Lud in mist metaphorically refers to London doesn’t it? And rather like some of the old Soviet descriptions just been posted here this lunchtime, the bourgeois middle class have overthrown the rule of the aristocracy in revolution (similar to 1848) but haven’t realised what they have thrown away so things are not really working now. They need to read the gravestones in the cemetery to realise the mistake they have made 🙂
Far too easy to say I’m I republican. Are the people who post it here any different than the bolsheviks who shot the Russian Royal Family? Do they really know what they are doing?
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
On their performance in Ukraine, any war Russia launched against Poland would be the most one-sided brutal hammering of a larger enemy by a theoretically smaller one since Israel handed the entirety of the Arab World their arses in the Six Day War.
Erm, don't they have to get through Ukr to attack Poland?
How's that going again?
They could try from Belarus and Kaliningrad. Not sure how many miles they would make it.
Lots of people twisting themselves in knots to defend what I think is a fairly bad decision by the church court, which was made with laughable justifications.
"white muppets" wrong "everyone was at it" not everyone "we'd have to cancel a whole century" no we wouldn't
Just have a look at the case itself, and read the judgment itself.
My point is not to justify it because everyone was at it, quite the reverse. But it was a *national* enterprise, it is what we as a country fundamentally did. It therfore seems a bit pointless to pick off arbitrary individuals.
Yes, seems a pointless endeavour in that respect.
I suppose you drop litter everywhere because of the vast amounts of pollution that will still be made everywhere else.
Amazingly, not every issue is the same or requires the same solutions.
Thanks for explaining that to me.
Your "argument" is an exact equivalent of dropping litter everywhere. Hope that helps you to understand a relatively simple point.
I understood your point just fine, thanks. You're extrapolating way more about what I believe than can be gleaned from a single comment, and then expanding it with an extremely stupid comparison, so you'll forgive me if I didn't see the point of addressing it. It was the equivalent of attempting a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question when I'm not even married - both misconceived and unreasonable.
In actual fact I think recognising the nation's historical involvement in slavery and addressing any lingering impacts from that requires something a bit more than picking off whichever person is the random slavery adjacent person of the week to get attention. National monuments, our laws against discrimination and actually tackling matters of indirect discrimination which exist, these I think address current problems a bit more. I think a focus on statues including of people with very limited connections to the trade is high profile, but can serve as a distraction from less visible efforts that are needed. Yes you could do both, but campaigns against visible things are more dramatic.
What you seem to have done is the idiot's approach to 'They don't agree about specific point X, therefore they must not care at all about Y' with an, again, really dumb attempt at a comparison.
In that case apologies I completely misjudged you. But I still think people complaining about the pointlessness of a university asking to have a memorial to a slave trader moved somewhere else aren't really helping.
If Meghan and her walking dildo start throwing mud at William and Kate, after the Queen's death, they're obviously going to come off worst. Meghan's approval rating is -19%, and Harry is at par. William and Kate are at +54%.
Not sure why the Firm’s current fuckup has sent you off on some rant about H&M.
Brilliant detail in the Economist’s coverage of THAT rally in Moscow
Putin was, apparently, wearing a ‘Lora Piano’ coat, made in Italy. Price: $14,000
Tommy Hilfiger gilet, go fuck yourself.
When I watched that rally, I actually remember thinking, omg Putin is now a full on Fascist leader…. but that really is quite a nice coat. Worked well with the rollneck jumper, too
Which leaves the really important question a begging, what shoes? I'm guessing Gucci or perhaps Ferragamo.
It looks like the only P&O Ferries service now operating is between Dublin and Liverpool - all the other routes remain suspended. P&O also say that they're no longer arranging alternative travel on the Cairnryan - Larne route.
The sacked workers are unlikely to see a penny of compensation at this rate, because the company will go out of business before too long.
Lots of people twisting themselves in knots to defend what I think is a fairly bad decision by the church court, which was made with laughable justifications.
"white muppets" wrong "everyone was at it" not everyone "we'd have to cancel a whole century" no we wouldn't
Just have a look at the case itself, and read the judgment itself.
My point is not to justify it because everyone was at it, quite the reverse. But it was a *national* enterprise, it is what we as a country fundamentally did. It therfore seems a bit pointless to pick off arbitrary individuals.
Yes, seems a pointless endeavour in that respect.
I suppose you drop litter everywhere because of the vast amounts of pollution that will still be made everywhere else.
Amazingly, not every issue is the same or requires the same solutions.
Thanks for explaining that to me.
Your "argument" is an exact equivalent of dropping litter everywhere. Hope that helps you to understand a relatively simple point.
I understood your point just fine, thanks. You're extrapolating way more about what I believe than can be gleaned from a single comment, and then expanding it with an extremely stupid comparison, so you'll forgive me if I didn't see the point of addressing it. It was the equivalent of attempting a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question when I'm not even married - both misconceived and unreasonable.
In actual fact I think recognising the nation's historical involvement in slavery and addressing any lingering impacts from that requires something a bit more than picking off whichever person is the random slavery adjacent person of the week to get attention. National monuments, our laws against discrimination and actually tackling matters of indirect discrimination which exist, these I think address current problems a bit more. I think a focus on statues including of people with very limited connections to the trade is high profile, but can serve as a distraction from less visible efforts that are needed. Yes you could do both, but campaigns against visible things are more dramatic.
What you seem to have done is the idiot's approach to 'They don't agree about specific point X, therefore they must not care at all about Y' with an, again, really dumb attempt at a comparison.
In that case apologies I completely misjudged you. But I still think people complaining about the pointlessness of a university asking to have a memorial to a slave trader moved somewhere else aren't really helping.
One point is Colston and Rustat were probably the two nicest slave traders that ever lived, it's their huge handouts to schools and hospitals and such that put them in the firing line by getting them memorialised. And, as I've said, one thing that's for certain is that they were mere employees of Chas n James II.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
I always remember his passing because it led to my favourite ever by-election, asto replace him it was one where only LD hereditary peers could vote, so there were 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters. VIscount Thurso got all 3, so was a rare example of someone in the Lords, then the Commons, then the Lords.
Brexit thinking did have a strand of "You lot have had it too easy in Europe, Britain needs the economic equivalent of a cold shower followed by a cross-country run. You'll hate it at the time, but it will be worth it when you're fit, buff and can pull Natalie Imbruglia."
But it's not what the people voted for.
Ironically, that was the justification for *joining* the EEC. Britain was the sick man of Europe. It was also the justification for joining the ERM at too high a rate. Discipline. Cold showers. Hilda Ogden.
It looks like the only P&O Ferries service now operating is between Dublin and Liverpool - all the other routes remain suspended. P&O also say that they're no longer arranging alternative travel on the Cairnryan - Larne route.
The sacked workers are unlikely to see a penny of compensation at this rate, because the company will go out of business before too long.
They should be given the ferries as compensation and then operate the services as a workers' cooperative.
Do you realise for the first time in history there is not a single white man in any of the 3 great offices of state outside the pm...an Asian man, an Asian woman and a white woman...if the proponents of diversity are correct this should be the greatest govt ever...
It’s great. Just a shame they’re so useless
Lol you have made my point....
You think we'd do better to have a government of white men?
I just think having 2 people of South Asian descent in the big offices of state smarks of tokenism when one is priti patel
I think you attach more importance to peoples' "descent" than most of us do.
So you think priti Patel is worthy of her office then...
No, moron, but I genuinely don't give a fuck in either direction about her "Asian descent," and failure to be white, and certainly not enough to introduce it out of the blue as an off-topic topic at the beginning of a thread. You do. Why?
Would someone of priti patels competence have got to be home secretary if they were a white man...
Gavin Williamson waves.
That's SIR Gavin Williamson to the peasantry thank you.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
[...]
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
Indeed. There is nothing there.
It's an institution for another age, one inhabited I am afraid by a few of our pb posters who live under the illusion of a golden haze: the throwbacks to an era when Britain was considered great and which they thought they would spirit back when they voted Brexit.
Their generation is dying out and so is the monarchy.
No more or less of a farce surely than our elected representatives.
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
At the moment vast amounts of fund raising for the greatest set of listed buildings in England happens by local support and effort. The C of E broadly raises enough to fund vicars, with many local variations of course, but needs greater assistance in providing as it does free access to thousands of Grade 1 and Grade 2* buildings for millions. Keeping the roof on comes expensive.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
Brexit thinking did have a strand of "You lot have had it too easy in Europe, Britain needs the economic equivalent of a cold shower followed by a cross-country run. You'll hate it at the time, but it will be worth it when you're fit, buff and can pull Natalie Imbruglia."
But it's not what the people voted for.
Ironically, that was the justification for *joining* the EEC. Britain was the sick man of Europe. It was also the justification for joining the ERM at too high a rate. Discipline. Cold showers. Hilda Ogden.
Brilliant detail in the Economist’s coverage of THAT rally in Moscow
Putin was, apparently, wearing a ‘Lora Piano’ coat, made in Italy. Price: $14,000
Tommy Hilfiger gilet, go fuck yourself.
When I watched that rally, I actually remember thinking, omg Putin is now a full on Fascist leader…. but that really is quite a nice coat. Worked well with the rollneck jumper, too
Which leaves the really important question a begging, what shoes? I'm guessing Gucci or perhaps Ferragamo.
Prada.
The Devil wears Prada.
I have done a quick bit of research and Vlad apparently goes for Ferragamo (kudos to me) and John Lobb. His suits are Brioni (which just to aftertime I would have gone for) and a shadowy tailor to the Kremlin called Tigorico; the latter charge c.$5000 per suit.
Divvie, PB style correspondent with his finger on the sartorial pulse of depraved tyrants.
If Meghan and her walking dildo start throwing mud at William and Kate, after the Queen's death, they're obviously going to come off worst. Meghan's approval rating is -19%, and Harry is at par. William and Kate are at +54%.
Not sure why the Firm’s current fuckup has sent you off on some rant about H&M.
Some are speculating they would have been good at advising on the recent trip.
According to the Wikipedia Order of Battle there are a total of 29 Generals involved in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including Air Force generals, but not including Generals at the General Staff level. So the 7 lost generals represents an astonishingly high proportion of the senior officers involved.
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
At the moment vast amounts of fund raising for the greatest set of listed buildings in England happens by local support and effort. The C of E broadly raises enough to fund vicars, with many local variations of course, but needs greater assistance in providing as it does free access to thousands of Grade 1 and Grade 2* buildings for millions. Keeping the roof on comes expensive.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
Aimed at me?
That's the model I'm defending. I'm quite the historic building enthusiast - I grew up in a (4 bedroom ) listed Derbyshire Hall.
If it's a "historic buildings tax", that would be different from a "church tax".
But it is the case that our historic church buildings are in far better condition than they have ever been.
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
Which lands does Orban have his eye on? Ukraine is much bigger than Hungary so I doubt he'd fair better there than the Russians have.
A popular poster or bumper sticker in Hungary is the map of 'Greater Hungary' with all the lost lands 'stolen' from them at Versailles. Mostly now in Romania
One of Orban's election rigging tactics is to give postal votes to all the Hungarians in Ukraine and Romania (among whom he is popular) but deny postal votes to Hungarians living in western Europe (among whom he is unpopular)
That's quite blatant. I can think of a couple of similar ruses for the Tories if they want to offer me some money.
I think technically the rules don't say exactly that. There is a rule that anyone who has an address in Hungary can only vote in person. This means my friend who has been living in Germany for a few years has to go to the Hungarian embassy (or Hungary) to vote - which is a long way. On the other hand, Orban has put a lot of effort into giving Hungarian citizenship to people of Hungarian ancestry in neighboring countries - obviously it's no coincidence that these new Hungarians tend to be more pro Fidesz than those who have emigrated to other parts of the EU. These people tend not to have an address in Hungary so get a postal vote. Apparently 90% of postal votes go to Fidesz, whereas (according to polling) big majorities of those voting at embassies abroad are against Fidesz.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
Rishi Sunak is the Emma Raducanu of politics. Discuss
Are you going to say she's a beautiful girl even though she's not even 18 like you did with Raducanu
“Russia may conduct a full-scale offensive on Poland, the Baltic states & Kazakhstan as part of a global military special operation on demilitarization & denazification,” - Russian MP Sergei Savostyanov.
On their performance in Ukraine, any war Russia launched against Poland would be the most one-sided brutal hammering of a larger enemy by a theoretically smaller one since Israel handed the entirety of the Arab World their arses in the Six Day War.
Erm, don't they have to get through Ukr to attack Poland?
How's that going again?
Belarus. And I am sure they have troops in Kaliningrad (not that the ones in Transdnistria seem to have been used to attack Ukraine).
According to the Wikipedia Order of Battle there are a total of 29 Generals involved in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including Air Force generals, but not including Generals at the General Staff level. So the 7 lost generals represents an astonishingly high proportion of the senior officers involved.
They’re going forward to try and sort out the mess themselves
Doesn't mince his words sometimes. Nations always have and always will make cold, ruthless choices, which may well be in the best interests of their people, or at least they will think so. But in this day and age people will interrogate such claims more strongly, as the emotional pleas will be much easier to be heard.
Zelensky doing what -in my dreams- should be the role of the President of Council and Commission.
There was one who used to do it in private.
The days of member states hiding their sovereign decisions and blaming Brussels may be coming to an end.
Do you realise for the first time in history there is not a single white man in any of the 3 great offices of state outside the pm...an Asian man, an Asian woman and a white woman...if the proponents of diversity are correct this should be the greatest govt ever...
It’s great. Just a shame they’re so useless
Lol you have made my point....
You think we'd do better to have a government of white men?
I just think having 2 people of South Asian descent in the big offices of state smarks of tokenism when one is priti patel
I think you attach more importance to peoples' "descent" than most of us do.
So you think priti Patel is worthy of her office then...
No, moron, but I genuinely don't give a fuck in either direction about her "Asian descent," and failure to be white, and certainly not enough to introduce it out of the blue as an off-topic topic at the beginning of a thread. You do. Why?
Would someone of priti patels competence have got to be home secretary if they were a white man...
'We've received a lot of messages in the last week. We're not linked to that company. We're both called P+O but that's where the similarity ends.'
I wonder if P+O Ferries might actually be in line for damages on that basis?
I wonder if they have a credible valuation for the brand from before it was completely destroyed that they can use as part of a claim.
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
P&O Cruises is a far longer established business than P&O Ferries. They’ll keep the brand and keep pointing out the difference. IF they were daft enough to change the brand they’d reverse takeover P&O into Princess, the much bigger line they ran in the US before the Carnival merger.
P&O might as well stand for Poison & Ordure for the reputation that it now has. The difference between P&O Cruises and P&O Ferries will be lost on many, and even for those who know the difference consciously, the subconscious association will still do massive damage.
This is a lost battle for P&O Cruises. The sooner they accept that the sooner they will be able to move on.
P&O is just a division of the US cruise giant Carnival; they keep the brand because it helps them segment the market and pitch at mid-market Brits and anglophone Americans, just as they keep Cunard for the top-market cruises. If the brand ceases to carry value, they can easily just rebrand or fold the operation into another part of their business.
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
I always remember his passing because it led to my favourite ever by-election, asto replace him it was one where only LD hereditary peers could vote, so there were 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters. VIscount Thurso got all 3, so was a rare example of someone in the Lords, then the Commons, then the Lords.
Next Lords by-election is next week to replace Lord Rotherwick.
Candidature statements Ashcombe, L.Having been a regular attender of the ACP meetings, my longstanding interest in politics has been reinformed. With a civil engineering degree from Imperial College I have spent over 35 years in the insurance industry and am currently head of the Americas energy specialty at Marsh. This requires patient negotiation with multiple parties and cultures. I hope that I would be able to deploy this experience to the benefit of this House. Baillieu, L. On leaving the army (Coldstream Guards), I lived in Australia (17 years), Hong Kong (5 years), and Russia (23 years). My career has been in banking and finance. Based on my experience my focus groups are: • Armed Forces. • Commonwealth. • Foreign Relations. • Banking and Finance. • Health Care. In each of these areas I have relevant (even current) experience. In the Ukraine - Russia situation I understand the Russian mindset, and this could support a diplomatic response. Biddulph, L. I would be honoured to serve the House if chosen. Camrose, V. Aged 52, member of the Conservative Party and life long Conservative voter. I live and work in London and would commit to voting and attending as needed. I advise businesses of all sizes on how to work more productively and adapt to change. I work with new ventures as a founder and investor and would hope to bring my expertise and energy to enhancing the public recognition of the House of Lords. Ironside, L. It would be my intention to take a very active interest in the House of Lords if elected. Having spent 25 years in the Lloyd’s insurance market as a director of several successful companies, I have acquired plenty of experience in Big Business. For the last 20 years I have managed and run my own specialised business establishing it as a market leader in the field of classic Mercedes motor cars.
Cont. Limerick, E. (L. Foxford) Age 59. London and Sussex based. Patron of Mid Sussex Conservatives. Useful and varied career experience: • FCO with postings in Paris (ENA, first British diplomat in Quai d’Orsay), Senegal and Jordan. Fluent French, Russian. Some Spanish, Arabic and Wolof. • Lawyer and banker in London, Moscow and Dubai financing SMEs and infrastructure. • Former school governor and active charity trustee. • Running diversified farm including renewables, wilding, weddings, camping. MicroBrewery. Key interests: Foreign Policy, Trade, Environment, Education, Planning Napier and Ettrick, L. As a Conservative candidate, I wish to assure you that my life experience as someone who has succeeded in business despite significant challenges, due to severe hearing impairments, would enable me to make a distinctive and valuable contribution to the House. However, having lost my son and heir apparent aged 25 on the ground of his mental illness late last August, I am able to expose how utterly flawed our NHS mental health system is. Rowallan, L. I feel we must do more for people on fixed incomes & in particular pensioners in these inflationary times We need to do more for the Ukrainian people both in Ukraine & the refugees wishing to come to the UK especially if they already have family resident here. I feel our House needs to hold internal elections amongst all political & non political groupings as the hereditary peers do to better reflect General election results. Windlesham, L. If elected I would work hard at being a good, dedicated Conservative Peer. I would demonstrate my commitment by making a promise always to be available to vote in support of the legislative programme of the Government. My background is a career in big-ticket asset finance and prior to that I studied electronic and electrical engineering at University. This combination gives me an ideal skill set to look at policy issues from a technical perspective.
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax should be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
Why do we need a Church / Religion Tax (or equivalent) in the UK?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
At the moment vast amounts of fund raising for the greatest set of listed buildings in England happens by local support and effort. The C of E broadly raises enough to fund vicars, with many local variations of course, but needs greater assistance in providing as it does free access to thousands of Grade 1 and Grade 2* buildings for millions. Keeping the roof on comes expensive.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
Aimed at me?
That's the model I'm defending. I'm quite the historic building enthusiast - I grew up in a (4 bedroom ) listed Derbyshire Hall.
If it's a "historic buildings tax", that would be different from a "church tax".
But it is the case that our historic church buildings are in far better condition than they have ever been.
Agreeing with you. Thanks.
Because of the way societies develop not according to pre design but in an evolutionary way we have several strands. 1, the established church, 2 an amazing ecclesiastical building heritage, 3 the public expectation that the CoE is available for all comers (still massively strong in some parts) as and when they want it, 4 enthusiastic and diverse religious traditions.
Because of 2 and 3 the tax payer should support the buildings aspect. There is no public desire to let them fall down or to be told to go away when asking the established church for something. And there is a case for public support for established church ministers in run down places that can't fund them. The wealthy can and do fund the vicars. But the public do still expect them in Scunthorpe as well as South Kensington.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
It would not surprise me if someone like Tony Benn or Charles Bradlaugh or Lord Avebury had tried.
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
Sorry - *was*. Lord Avebury passed away in 2016, so is either rotting or surprised.
I always remember his passing because it led to my favourite ever by-election, asto replace him it was one where only LD hereditary peers could vote, so there were 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters. VIscount Thurso got all 3, so was a rare example of someone in the Lords, then the Commons, then the Lords.
Next Lords by-election is next week to replace Lord Rotherwick.
The further we get from 1999 and the 'temporary' set up that persists to this day the funnier it gets. I've deliberately not looked into why some are elected only by the group, and some the whole house.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
So nothing to do with the fact that she was a manipulative bully?
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
All those middle-sized engineering firms that Germany has, often family run and owned by their banks; without all the short-term pressures that US and UK firms have, they are free to think long-term and become technical leaders in their field. I remember visiting a firm that made lifts near Düsseldorf during my MBA; the ethos of the company was nothing like a British firm. They made expensive lifts, but you knew they were the best.
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
I'd imagine the Germans are very good at weapons. All the best movie and lighting gear is German. Precision made and used all over the world. Arriflex are quite simply the best
Small, lightweight, simple, cheap. Doesn't sound like Arriflex.
If Meghan and her walking dildo start throwing mud at William and Kate, after the Queen's death, they're obviously going to come off worst. Meghan's approval rating is -19%, and Harry is at par. William and Kate are at +54%.
Not sure why the Firm’s current fuckup has sent you off on some rant about H&M.
Some are speculating they would have been good at advising on the recent trip.
Ah, I know the mere mention of them can trigger the bile gland of some folk.
Doesn't mince his words sometimes. Nations always have and always will make cold, ruthless choices, which may well be in the best interests of their people, or at least they will think so. But in this day and age people will interrogate such claims more strongly, as the emotional pleas will be much easier to be heard.
Zelensky doing what -in my dreams- should be the role of the President of Council and Commission.
There was one who used to do it in private.
The days of member states hiding their sovereign decisions and blaming Brussels may be coming to an end.
Idly sharing a dip into another life. I've been an urbanite forever, grew up in a (nice) tower block, comfortable in everything from shopping in Oxford Street to canvassing in Glasgow tenements. I had hay fever as a kid so associate the countryside with feeling rubbish. I go for a walk now and then because a friend asks me to.
And for various reasons I fill my life with multiple jobs - running the UK arm of the charity, translating, council Executive, chairing the CLP. I fit in relaxation (socialising, mostly, and some poker and computer games) from time to time, like someone planning a short trip to the shops. I'm quite happy, and never bored.
But convalescing from Covid, I thought I'd take a mug of tea and Follett's The Man from St Petersburg into the neglected garden. Sat for an hour in the sun. A beautiful butterfly hovered around me, then sat companionably on the garden table. I've nothing in particular to do all day, or tomorrow, and I'm signed off from work for a few days. I suppose this is what retirement is like? It's quite nice too.
When JK Rowling sat in that cafe all those years ago, there’s no way she could have known she’d one day be endorsed by Vladimir Putin. Never give up on your dreams.
Lots of people twisting themselves in knots to defend what I think is a fairly bad decision by the church court, which was made with laughable justifications.
"white muppets" wrong "everyone was at it" not everyone "we'd have to cancel a whole century" no we wouldn't
Just have a look at the case itself, and read the judgment itself.
My point is not to justify it because everyone was at it, quite the reverse. But it was a *national* enterprise, it is what we as a country fundamentally did. It therfore seems a bit pointless to pick off arbitrary individuals.
I still don’t understand why there isn’t a national monument to Britain’s part in slavery and the slave trade (though I have suspicions verging on certainties).
If by some accident of history and geography the UK had been responsible for the Holocaust, all the people who had stolen Jewish property and moved into houses vacated by deported Jews would have been financially compensated, the British Armed forces would have flip flopped to roaming Europe to prevent pogroms and been held up as a virtuous ideal, the Royals would be dispatched to patronise the denuded shtetls of the east, and instead of a huge memorial to the attempted extermination of a race in our capital city there would be a few blue plaques.
Hasn't happened with Germany. My wife's great grandparents were driven out of their home in Munich by the Nazis. A Nazi seized the (sizeable) house and all of the possessions, including sketches by Edvard Munch. Said Nazis descendants still live there and enjoy all possessions.
I may have expressed myself badly, I was suggesting in my little alternative history that as with British slave owners, the state would have compensated those who had to hand back stolen Jewish property after the war.
That sounds awful; if it doesn't invade the privacy of you and your wife can you name names - disinfectant of sunlight and all that? I'm aware that there are plenty of people that 'got away with it' post war but isn't that down to passivity and inaction rather than complicity of the German state (taking into account that there have been many twists and turns in what constitutes the post war German state)?
The lady in question was called Eva Mudocci, and was reasonably famous. She was an accomplished violinist, a lover of Edvard Munch, and appeared in a couple of his paintings.
As she had been said to have Jewish ancestry, she had to flee Germany.
As I understand it, attempts to reclaim the house (called Linden Villa) were unsuccessful due to the authorities claiming that it had been sold freely (for a tiny fraction of the price, which was never paid) and Eva had decided of her own volition to donate the contents (including sketches of herself by Munch).
Comments
Left to themselves, the religious types have a bad habit of getting excessively religious.
Yes, there were lots of attempts at string pulling, getting relatives in high positions to try and get a place etc etc.
Draped, perhaps?
I'd suggest that P&O Cruises need to create a completely new brand asap.
The Russians have lost their minds.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1507680989891416065
And remember there were also the staff who left. Now it could be well be that the staff were completely at fault or that there was fault on both sides. Who knows? But if they get attacked why should they remain silent? Can Harry and Meghan say that their behaviour has always and everywhere been utterly perfect? No. So they'd best be advised to stay quiet and enjoy the life they've chosen with their family. Carrying on with this family spat in public rather gives the impression that, instead of wanting to opt out of royal life, he's a bit cross that he was not treated with more importance. Not sure if that's true. It's difficult being a second son in a hierarchical family and he seems to have made the right choice for him. At any event, at some point - and certainly by the time you are 40 - you need to let past disputes and slights go and get on with your life, away from your family.
Been reading through while waiting for Mrs C to have an Outpatient procedure. Satisfactory, I’m glad to say; one more in three months and she’ll be discharged.
A theme is that they propose a policy that is Putin's policy, but turned up to 11. Then Putin comes along and says, we must be sensible....
mainly, I don't care about any of this. I am not trying to construct an argument or sling mud. Chill. What's interesting is the highly critical commentary from non-usual suspects like the torygraph and the BBC.
This should have been a slam dunk of a tour: radiant Peoples' Duchess, popular Baldy, throwbacks to popular and about to be jubileeing Queenie's earlier visits. What has spoiled it is the less-than-welcome from the locals, notably the Jamaican PM saying they want to go solo
Against that background things which would otherwise be fine, get re-examined. The Land Rover thing looks colonialist and patronising, and wtf is that painfully white outfit Baldy is in? Quite apart from the whole whiteness vibe, it reminds me of Baron Cohen in The Dictator. Ditto the kids through the fence scene; it is obviously completely innocent, but it is also, by pure bad luck a really striking image.
All of which is quite interesting for those interested in the future of the monarchy and the commonwealth.
The British monarchy seems to be doing its best to undo itself. When your Queen eventually dies that can only accelerate.
Apparently Russia is claiming to have destroyed 35 of the 18 Ukrainian TB2 drones - the ones from Turkey.
But it’s too easy to say “look how trendy I am, I’m a Republican”. Not everyone yet the majority posting “I’m a Republican” on here, are not republicans at all, imo, i am sure when they consider how much of our History, our Culture, the glue that binds us differences together as one nation made from all those previous lessons learned (some painfully) they also pour down the drain with the bath water - they deffo get second thoughts.
It was all explained to me in other masterpiece of art I pointed to https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1614284574827.pdf
As rather than be preachy or fail to say “why” - it’s way best to use allegory and metaphor to explain why, isn’t it?
Some of the other things I posted, dixy called prose, I copied from script of a play I was in I still have President Marmalade and the Devil that likely work much better when given as a speech in a play I admit.
So I Am not saying I got anything wrong.
I haven’t even looked at race cards. I have very much over slept. I think I’m having another time out today. I need to put my shades on and go outside and sunbathe in the park. 🥱
So may be just his opinion not that of 'Russia' or a Russian government Spokesperson.
It may well still be orgastrated by Putin, but if so it might be to show/give the impression that by Russian standards Putin is a Moderate.
I also have a serious q this morning.
Where is the place to go for startup business advice now - me not have been involved in one for a few years?
I'm looking at providing a smallish (£5-7k) top up investment for a small catering business that is nearly ready to launch, to be spent mainly on kit. My reward would be a modest % of the business, plus a small % of turnover from day one.
I need to find out things like the best places for a bank account, where the sweet spot is for how to handle investments wrt tax (eg is Rishi's 130% still available in these circs), and are startup grants available at present?.
Can anyone point me to any resources?
This is in North Notts.
Thanks.
The only way P+O Ferries could be caused damage is if someone actually rammed their ferries.
This is a lost battle for P&O Cruises. The sooner they accept that the sooner they will be able to move on.
There was a comic moment when a British lefty tried to get his taxi driver (or similar) into the special clinic for foreigners and high party officials in Cuba, a couple of years back. He was apparently surprised to find class distinction in the classless society...
One that I always enjoyed was the shocked wailing of Harry Hopkins when Churchill turned up at a conference with a valet to carry his bag, a doctor and a bodyguard. Stalin rocked up on a personal train with dozens of servants and a literal regiment of bodyguards.....
Lord Avebury formerly Eric Lubbock (I think it was he) used to supply a Parliamentary Pass to the boss of the tiny National Secular Society for many, many years, so it is certainly in his activism area.
How's that going again?
It reminds me of Ibsen. I find Ibsen plays very easy to read, yet they all teach us something rather complicated we may have overlooked, do you know what I mean?
I think the town of Lud in mist metaphorically refers to London doesn’t it? And rather like some of the old Soviet descriptions just been posted here this lunchtime, the bourgeois middle class have overthrown the rule of the aristocracy in revolution (similar to 1848) but haven’t realised what they have thrown away so things are not really working now. They need to read the gravestones in the cemetery to realise the mistake they have made 🙂
Far too easy to say I’m I republican. Are the people who post it here any different than the bolsheviks who shot the Russian Royal Family? Do they really know what they are doing?
By and large churches in the UK fund themselves from their members, their investments, and charitable tax relief. So by Ockham's Razor we don't need it. In some countries, it is tied up with delivery of government services, I think - which here are quite thoroughly secularised.
It looks like a scam to generate money to prop up failing humanist & other organisations with members who don't believe in their cause enough to fund it themselves. BHA already takes 10% of the fees from humanist weddings (unless the practice has changed recently).
Tax relief for charitable contributions seems far more reasonable, since that helps those willing to make personal donations.
ISTM that tax-funded support for fabric of ancient buildings - such as received by the secular society in Leicester for their listed hall - should also reasonably be kept separate. And ditto social projects, so that social service is separate from ideology, whether that is trad religion, or atheist, humanist or political equivalents.
The Devil wears Prada.
The sacked workers are unlikely to see a penny of compensation at this rate, because the company will go out of business before too long.
Have a look at the 1000 churches in Simon Jenkins' book, or the 4000 in John Betjeman's classic two volume guide, and ask how they all keep the rain out and the tower standing.
His suits are Brioni (which just to aftertime I would have gone for) and a shadowy tailor to the Kremlin called Tigorico; the latter charge c.$5000 per suit.
Divvie, PB style correspondent with his finger on the sartorial pulse of depraved tyrants.
That's the model I'm defending. I'm quite the historic building enthusiast - I grew up in a (4 bedroom
If it's a "historic buildings tax", that would be different from a "church tax".
But it is the case that our historic church buildings are in far better condition than they have ever been.
On the other hand, Orban has put a lot of effort into giving Hungarian citizenship to people of Hungarian ancestry in neighboring countries - obviously it's no coincidence that these new Hungarians tend to be more pro Fidesz than those who have emigrated to other parts of the EU. These people tend not to have an address in Hungary so get a postal vote. Apparently 90% of postal votes go to Fidesz, whereas (according to polling) big majorities of those voting at embassies abroad are against Fidesz.
There's an article here about it:
https://www.rferl.org/a/hungary-election-diaspora-orban-marki-zay/31712662.html
First batch of 5,100 new 🇩🇪 RGW90 anti-tank missiles reportedly arrived in Ukraine.
https://mobile.twitter.com/tobiaschneider/status/1507694922895343619
V lightweight, and shorter range than the NLAW, but modern, not ex Soviet kit, and useful.
The German language has a certain simple beauty to it.
These Muscovite social climbers can never get their designers spelling right!
This site has at times been a real refuge for me, where I have felt able to share things I could not with my friends and family.
Whilst we don't always agree, I do feel supported here. Thank you for your kindness and patience with me.
More formally, probably Panzerabwehrwaffe - anti-tank weapon
Zelensky doing what -in my dreams- should be the role of the President of Council and Commission.
There was one who used to do it in private.
The days of member states hiding their sovereign decisions and blaming Brussels may be coming to an end.
https://twitter.com/PabloPerezA/status/1507393456846655492
But being serious, glad you are doing better. Despite the above, these issues are no joke.
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-information-office/2022/notice-with-candidates-list-rotherwick.pdf
Candidature statements
Ashcombe, L.Having been a regular attender of the ACP meetings, my longstanding
interest in politics has been reinformed. With a civil engineering degree from Imperial
College I have spent over 35 years in the insurance industry and am currently head of the
Americas energy specialty at Marsh. This requires patient negotiation with multiple parties
and cultures. I hope that I would be able to deploy this experience to the benefit of this
House.
Baillieu, L.
On leaving the army (Coldstream Guards), I lived in Australia (17 years), Hong Kong (5
years), and Russia (23 years). My career has been in banking and finance.
Based on my experience my focus groups are:
• Armed Forces.
• Commonwealth.
• Foreign Relations.
• Banking and Finance.
• Health Care.
In each of these areas I have relevant (even current) experience. In the Ukraine - Russia
situation I understand the Russian mindset, and this could support a diplomatic response.
Biddulph, L.
I would be honoured to serve the House if chosen.
Camrose, V.
Aged 52, member of the Conservative Party and life long Conservative voter. I live and
work in London and would commit to voting and attending as needed. I advise businesses
of all sizes on how to work more productively and adapt to change. I work with new
ventures as a founder and investor and would hope to bring my expertise and energy to
enhancing the public recognition of the House of Lords.
Ironside, L.
It would be my intention to take a very active interest in the House of Lords if elected.
Having spent 25 years in the Lloyd’s insurance market as a director of several successful
companies, I have acquired plenty of experience in Big Business. For the last 20 years I
have managed and run my own specialised business establishing it as a market leader in
the field of classic Mercedes motor cars.
Limerick, E. (L. Foxford)
Age 59. London and Sussex based. Patron of Mid Sussex Conservatives. Useful and varied
career experience:
• FCO with postings in Paris (ENA, first British diplomat in Quai d’Orsay), Senegal
and Jordan. Fluent French, Russian. Some Spanish, Arabic and Wolof.
• Lawyer and banker in London, Moscow and Dubai financing SMEs and
infrastructure.
• Former school governor and active charity trustee.
• Running diversified farm including renewables, wilding, weddings, camping.
MicroBrewery.
Key interests: Foreign Policy, Trade, Environment, Education, Planning
Napier and Ettrick, L.
As a Conservative candidate, I wish to assure you that my life experience as someone
who has succeeded in business despite significant challenges, due to severe hearing
impairments, would enable me to make a distinctive and valuable contribution to the
House. However, having lost my son and heir apparent aged 25 on the ground of his
mental illness late last August, I am able to expose how utterly flawed our NHS mental
health system is.
Rowallan, L.
I feel we must do more for people on fixed incomes & in particular pensioners in these
inflationary times
We need to do more for the Ukrainian people both in Ukraine & the refugees wishing to
come to the UK especially if they already have family resident here.
I feel our House needs to hold internal elections amongst all political & non political
groupings as the hereditary peers do to better reflect General election results.
Windlesham, L.
If elected I would work hard at being a good, dedicated Conservative Peer. I would
demonstrate my commitment by making a promise always to be available to vote in
support of the legislative programme of the Government.
My background is a career in big-ticket asset finance and prior to that I studied electronic
and electrical engineering at University. This combination gives me an ideal skill set to
look at policy issues from a technical perspective.
Good to see, though, and good for DE.
Because of the way societies develop not according to pre design but in an evolutionary way we have several strands. 1, the established church, 2 an amazing ecclesiastical building heritage, 3 the public expectation that the CoE is available for all comers (still massively strong in some parts) as and when they want it, 4 enthusiastic and diverse religious traditions.
Because of 2 and 3 the tax payer should support the buildings aspect. There is no public desire to let them fall down or to be told to go away when asking the established church for something. And there is a case for public support for established church ministers in run down places that can't fund them. The wealthy can and do fund the vicars. But the public do still expect them in Scunthorpe as well as South Kensington.
Doesn't sound like Arriflex.
And for various reasons I fill my life with multiple jobs - running the UK arm of the charity, translating, council Executive, chairing the CLP. I fit in relaxation (socialising, mostly, and some poker and computer games) from time to time, like someone planning a short trip to the shops. I'm quite happy, and never bored.
But convalescing from Covid, I thought I'd take a mug of tea and Follett's The Man from St Petersburg into the neglected garden. Sat for an hour in the sun. A beautiful butterfly hovered around me, then sat companionably on the garden table. I've nothing in particular to do all day, or tomorrow, and I'm signed off from work for a few days. I suppose this is what retirement is like? It's quite nice too.
When JK Rowling sat in that cafe all those years ago, there’s no way she could have known she’d one day be endorsed by Vladimir Putin. Never give up on your dreams.
https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1507365996201455638
As she had been said to have Jewish ancestry, she had to flee Germany.
As I understand it, attempts to reclaim the house (called Linden Villa) were unsuccessful due to the authorities claiming that it had been sold freely (for a tiny fraction of the price, which was never paid) and Eva had decided of her own volition to donate the contents (including sketches of herself by Munch).
There's a book that's been written about her, called "Lady with a Brooch": https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1733560203/