Reuters - Ukrainian prosecutors investigating possible war crimes by Russia have found 410 bodies in towns near Kyiv and 140 of them had been examined. Russia denied allegations that its forces killed civilians in the town of Bucha near Kyiv.
Disgusting behaviour from Putin. There really needs to be a way to find a ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war
Hmm, not completely sure about that. I want a lot more of these murderers going home in wooden boxes and as much equipment stripped off the Russian army as possible so they can't come back. Allowing the Russians to regroup and rearm might be a major mistake.
Edit, but welcome by the way. New voices always welcome.
You don’t want them going back in wooden boxes - you want them going back missing limbs as they will be a clear and indisputable “truth” to the Russian people of the cost of the war they support.
If there are 20,000 young men who are visibly ruined by the war it cannot be hidden and also they will be able to tell their families and friends about what they saw and how bad the Russian military really is.
Also injured soldiers use up more resources than dead soldiers along the line….
That’s why the Azov battalion shot those Russian POWs in the legs. Much more militarily effective than murder
I seem to remember from the Ken Burns Vietnam doc that whilst the American public were shocked by deaths the effect of seeing the wounded and traumatised soldiers around them every day brought the war home much more viscerally than stats of dead soldiers.
If you are a Russian mother and you see young men come home missing limbs and traumatised in your town and then you look at your son who might get called up then you might start questioning the propaganda.
And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda. Great anti war song.
So they collected the cripples, the wounded and maimed And they shipped us back home to Australia The legless, the armless, the blind and insane Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla And as our ship pulled into Circular Quay I looked at the place where me legs used to be And thank Christ there was no-one there waiting for me To grieve and to mourn and to pity And the band played Waltzing Matilda As they carried us down the gangway But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared And they turned all their faces away
One of the best anti-war songs ever written. And actually one of the best songs ever written as well.
BBC bosses have readvertised the job of political editor after being unhappy with the choice of candidates to replace Laura Kuenssberg in one of the most influential roles in British journalism.
Following weeks of interviews and an extensive recruitment process, the corporation had produced an all-female shortlist for the role, with ITV News’s Anushka Asthana and Sky News’s Sophy Ridge believed to be the final two candidates. An announcement on which of them would get the job had been expected to coincide with Kuenssberg stepping down last week.
Instead, the BBC political correspondent Chris Mason is now the favourite to land the role after bosses quietly began inviting fresh applications for the job. The recruitment page for the role of political editor has been reopened until Tuesday, although there has been no acknowledgement of this from senior staff or formal announcement from the BBC encouraging fresh applications.
Mason is widely liked across the BBC but one media industry executive pointed out the BBC could be about to reject “an all-female shortlist of brilliant women” in favour of a man.
Reopening applications will allow Mason to send in his CV – but will also make it possible for anyone else to apply and is a public sign that executives are not content with the existing range of candidates. In recent days, there had been speculation that BBC executives were unhappy with the process and were seeking other candidates for the role.
I wonder if Isabel Hardman would be considered an option? Or whether she would fancy it. She comes across as completely non-ideological. Someone who just tells you what is going on.
The fact such a plum role is short of applicants rather sadly tells its own story. Did the BBC initially insist on an all woman shortlist?
Hardman is not quoted in the betting. Here are Star Sports' prices:-
Chris Mason 9/4 Anushka Asthana 5/2 Sophy Ridge 11/4 Alex Forsyth 7/2 Sam Coates 9/2 Paul Brand 11/2 Faisal Islam 8/1 Adam Fleming 9/1 Lewis Goodall 10/1 James Landale 12/1 Pippa Crerar 12/1 Ros Atkins 16/1 Beth Rigby 20/1 Emma Vardy 20/1 Nick Watt 20/1 Nick Eardley 33/1 Jonathan Blake 40/1 Ione Wells 50/1 Gary Gibbon 66/1 Others Upon Request
Looking at the latest appalling images from Ukraine and the verified equipment losses if arms shipments from the West are upped so that Russian air cover is reduced further and the Ukrainians can move men and equipment around reasonably freely then Russia could be heading for cataclysmic battlefield defeat.
Not if Germany has its way.....
This from Illia Ponomarenko, The Kyiv Independent:
"I am now facing an interview no sane human being would easily wish to have. And I am horrified by the fact I will have to write it down. Word by word."
Can't imagine who he is interviewing, but I can imagine about what. Some of these journalists are going to need serious counseling once this is over.
Is this an army out of control, or have they been guided to atrocities so as to provoke the west? Ditto the rape-murders reported yesterday
This is not the Red Army wreaking understandable (if terrible) revenge on Hitler’s Germany
I am haunted by this passage in a CNN article yesterday
"I have been trying to make sense of this for a month, because as terrible as Putin is, you could never say he was illogical," says Peter T. DeSimone, an associate professor of Russian and Eastern European history at Utica University in New York.
"All of this is illogical, and that's the scary thing," he says. "This is not normal for what he's done in the past. This is something that makes no sense on many levels, and not just in regard to World War II."
It feels like Russia, under its leader, has entered some kind of psychosis. Akin to Hitlerism
As I understand it in WW2 many SS commanders and some German army commanders worked out that there men where less likely to surrender if they had committed terrible crimes on civilians first. possibly because if men have committed theses sorts of crimes, they know not to expect to much mercy if they surrender so fight to the death.
Very very sad, but we might be at that point again.
The idea that someone could look at Russia right now and say "hmm, maybe what's needed is a dictator" boggles me. It's the stupidest thing I've read on here (and I was here for when HYUFD claimed that you couldn't get from London to Cambridge without entering Essex).
The M11, the main road route from London to Cambridge, goes through Essex
The A10 does not.
So you can choose to go into Essex or not. Literally nobody thinks you can't possibly go through Essex, and only one person, you, thinks you HAVE to.
When Samuel Pepys went from London to Cambridge, a favorite journey for him, he almost always went one of the Hertfordshire routes, which had a number of alternatives. Curiously he never chose the M11, though on one occasions he diverted to Audley End, near Saffron Walden in Essex. And IIRC once via Epping Forest.
He actually stayed in Epping on one such journey, as he notes in his diaries
Reuters - Ukrainian prosecutors investigating possible war crimes by Russia have found 410 bodies in towns near Kyiv and 140 of them had been examined. Russia denied allegations that its forces killed civilians in the town of Bucha near Kyiv.
Disgusting behaviour from Putin. There really needs to be a way to find a ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war
Hmm, not completely sure about that. I want a lot more of these murderers going home in wooden boxes and as much equipment stripped off the Russian army as possible so they can't come back. Allowing the Russians to regroup and rearm might be a major mistake.
Edit, but welcome by the way. New voices always welcome.
You don’t want them going back in wooden boxes - you want them going back missing limbs as they will be a clear and indisputable “truth” to the Russian people of the cost of the war they support.
If there are 20,000 young men who are visibly ruined by the war it cannot be hidden and also they will be able to tell their families and friends about what they saw and how bad the Russian military really is.
Also injured soldiers use up more resources than dead soldiers along the line….
That’s why the Azov battalion shot those Russian POWs in the legs. Much more militarily effective than murder
I seem to remember from the Ken Burns Vietnam doc that whilst the American public were shocked by deaths the effect of seeing the wounded and traumatised soldiers around them every day brought the war home much more viscerally than stats of dead soldiers.
If you are a Russian mother and you see young men come home missing limbs and traumatised in your town and then you look at your son who might get called up then you might start questioning the propaganda.
And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda. Great anti war song.
So they collected the cripples, the wounded and maimed And they shipped us back home to Australia The legless, the armless, the blind and insane Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla And as our ship pulled into Circular Quay I looked at the place where me legs used to be And thank Christ there was no-one there waiting for me To grieve and to mourn and to pity And the band played Waltzing Matilda As they carried us down the gangway But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared And they turned all their faces away
That’s good
I always liked Country Joe and the Fish’s Feel Like I’m Fixing To Die
Well, come on all of you, big strong men Uncle Sam needs your help again He's got himself in a terrible jam Way down yonder in Vietnam So put down your books and pick up a gun We're gonna have a whole lotta fun
And it's one, two, three What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn Next stop is Vietnam; And it's five, six, seven Open up the pearly gates Well there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! we're all gonna die
Well, come on generals, let's move fast; Your big chance has come at last Now you can go out and get those reds 'Cause the only good commie is the one that's dead And you know that peace can only be won When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come
Come on Wall Street, don't be slow Why man, this is war au-go-go There's plenty good money to be made By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb They drop it on the Viet Cong
Come on mothers throughout the land Pack your boys off to Vietnam Come on fathers, and don't hesitate To send your sons off before it's too late And you can be the first ones in your block To have your boy come home in a box
A good anti-war popular song is a deeply powerful thing
There are no formal links, the Russian Orthodox Church is not in the Anglican communion is it. It is not formally linked to the main Orthodox Church either after Kyrill cut links with the Patriarch of Constantinople.
In any case Welby told Kyrill of his ‘grave concerns’ over the Russian action only last month. Compare that to the leaders of China, South Africa, Syria, Pakistan, India etc none of whom have expressed any concern or criticism over Putin’s action
There is a formal link through the World Council of Churches.
But as I already said. There is perhaps a valid argument for the persuasion argument even if I personally think it is pointless.
Trying to be an optimist am I being silly in hoping that China has seen how bad invading Ukraine is that they think invading Taiwan will be a hundred times harder and abandon all plans to do so?
I think if you're the Chinese military establishment you can probably find plenty of supporting material for an argument that this was largely down to Russian military incompetence and lousy equipment and therefore not applicable for any military adventures you'd like to embark on yourself...
Bugger.
Don’t worry. No one sane would contemplate invading Taiwan without taking out the US carriers first. And no one sane would attempt that.
Can we just be sure that Xi doesn't have whatever Putin has?
Nearly 2.5 million Russian-Germans returned to Germany after the fall of the USSR in 1991.
Today, they gathered in Berlin to wave Russian, Soviet Union and “Z symbol”- flags.
Apparently similar demos in Cyprus and Slovenia. Trouble brews….
I can't see support for Putin being a thing. The mad may, clearly. The Russian narrative is obviously completely untrue. The West's narrative, admittedly, might have issues too, but there is a pretty strong pressure as to truth.
Support for Putin's incarceration - now that's a thing.
Reuters - Ukrainian prosecutors investigating possible war crimes by Russia have found 410 bodies in towns near Kyiv and 140 of them had been examined. Russia denied allegations that its forces killed civilians in the town of Bucha near Kyiv.
Disgusting behaviour from Putin. There really needs to be a way to find a ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war
Hmm, not completely sure about that. I want a lot more of these murderers going home in wooden boxes and as much equipment stripped off the Russian army as possible so they can't come back. Allowing the Russians to regroup and rearm might be a major mistake.
Edit, but welcome by the way. New voices always welcome.
You don’t want them going back in wooden boxes - you want them going back missing limbs as they will be a clear and indisputable “truth” to the Russian people of the cost of the war they support.
If there are 20,000 young men who are visibly ruined by the war it cannot be hidden and also they will be able to tell their families and friends about what they saw and how bad the Russian military really is.
Also injured soldiers use up more resources than dead soldiers along the line….
That’s why the Azov battalion shot those Russian POWs in the legs. Much more militarily effective than murder
I seem to remember from the Ken Burns Vietnam doc that whilst the American public were shocked by deaths the effect of seeing the wounded and traumatised soldiers around them every day brought the war home much more viscerally than stats of dead soldiers.
If you are a Russian mother and you see young men come home missing limbs and traumatised in your town and then you look at your son who might get called up then you might start questioning the propaganda.
And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda. Great anti war song.
So they collected the cripples, the wounded and maimed And they shipped us back home to Australia The legless, the armless, the blind and insane Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla And as our ship pulled into Circular Quay I looked at the place where me legs used to be And thank Christ there was no-one there waiting for me To grieve and to mourn and to pity And the band played Waltzing Matilda As they carried us down the gangway But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared And they turned all their faces away
When Shane McGowan sang it for The Pogues, you could quite believe he was legless....
BBC bosses have readvertised the job of political editor after being unhappy with the choice of candidates to replace Laura Kuenssberg in one of the most influential roles in British journalism.
Following weeks of interviews and an extensive recruitment process, the corporation had produced an all-female shortlist for the role, with ITV News’s Anushka Asthana and Sky News’s Sophy Ridge believed to be the final two candidates. An announcement on which of them would get the job had been expected to coincide with Kuenssberg stepping down last week.
Instead, the BBC political correspondent Chris Mason is now the favourite to land the role after bosses quietly began inviting fresh applications for the job. The recruitment page for the role of political editor has been reopened until Tuesday, although there has been no acknowledgement of this from senior staff or formal announcement from the BBC encouraging fresh applications.
Mason is widely liked across the BBC but one media industry executive pointed out the BBC could be about to reject “an all-female shortlist of brilliant women” in favour of a man.
Reopening applications will allow Mason to send in his CV – but will also make it possible for anyone else to apply and is a public sign that executives are not content with the existing range of candidates. In recent days, there had been speculation that BBC executives were unhappy with the process and were seeking other candidates for the role.
I wonder if Isabel Hardman would be considered an option? Or whether she would fancy it. She comes across as completely non-ideological. Someone who just tells you what is going on.
The fact such a plum role is short of applicants rather sadly tells its own story. Did the BBC initially insist on an all woman shortlist?
Hardman is not quoted in the betting. Here are Star Sports' prices:-
Chris Mason 9/4 Anushka Asthana 5/2 Sophy Ridge 11/4 Alex Forsyth 7/2 Sam Coates 9/2 Paul Brand 11/2 Faisal Islam 8/1 Adam Fleming 9/1 Lewis Goodall 10/1 James Landale 12/1 Pippa Crerar 12/1 Ros Atkins 16/1 Beth Rigby 20/1 Emma Vardy 20/1 Nick Watt 20/1 Nick Eardley 33/1 Jonathan Blake 40/1 Ione Wells 50/1 Gary Gibbon 66/1 Others Upon Request
Nearly 2.5 million Russian-Germans returned to Germany after the fall of the USSR in 1991.
Today, they gathered in Berlin to wave Russian, Soviet Union and “Z symbol”- flags.
Apparently similar demos in Cyprus and Slovenia. Trouble brews….
Surely we could just designate Russia as a terrorist state. Same thing as we did with ISIS. Any support for Russia is terrorism - so 10 years in jail and a ruined life.
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
The idea that someone could look at Russia right now and say "hmm, maybe what's needed is a dictator" boggles me. It's the stupidest thing I've read on here (and I was here for when HYUFD claimed that you couldn't get from London to Cambridge without entering Essex).
The M11, the main road route from London to Cambridge, goes through Essex
The A10 does not.
So you can choose to go into Essex or not. Literally nobody thinks you can't possibly go through Essex, and only one person, you, thinks you HAVE to.
When Samuel Pepys went from London to Cambridge, a favorite journey for him, he almost always went one of the Hertfordshire routes, which had a number of alternatives. Curiously he never chose the M11, though on one occasions he diverted to Audley End, near Saffron Walden in Essex. And IIRC once via Epping Forest.
He actually stayed in Epping on one such journey, as he notes in his diaries
That must have been a full page!
It was there that he was famously castigated for not being a Tory which sunk him into depression leading to him burying his Parmesan to protect it having been given warnings of war with Scotland.
Trying to be an optimist am I being silly in hoping that China has seen how bad invading Ukraine is that they think invading Taiwan will be a hundred times harder and abandon all plans to do so?
I think if you're the Chinese military establishment you can probably find plenty of supporting material for an argument that this was largely down to Russian military incompetence and lousy equipment and therefore not applicable for any military adventures you'd like to embark on yourself...
Bugger.
Don’t worry. No one sane would contemplate invading Taiwan without taking out the US carriers first. And no one sane would attempt that.
Can we just be sure that Xi doesn't have whatever Putin has?
I think the last two months have taught us that Xi is not necessarily a more careful calculator than Putin.
Thanks again, I'm struggling to understand why some 'party's' seem to have more candidates that there are seats available? e.g. the main opposition seem to have 279 candidates and there are only 199 seats?
is this because each of the party's who make up the main opposition are standing against each other in the constituency's? but a common list in the national PR section?
Nearly 2.5 million Russian-Germans returned to Germany after the fall of the USSR in 1991.
Today, they gathered in Berlin to wave Russian, Soviet Union and “Z symbol”- flags.
Interesting, and sad, do we know weather its the same people?
I did know about the large number of ethnic Russians that had lived in the USSR who came back to Germany, some are the descendants of Amish and Mennonite to came to Russia in the time of 'Catherin the Great' who wished to bring what where at the time 'modern farming methods to Russia, and was willing to offer them exemption form military conscription, which as passivists the Mennonites wanted.
but are the pro-Russia protesters just neo-communist and alt-Right pro Putin idiots? or the same people that ones lived in Russia?
There was once a Soviet Republic for the Volga Germans -it was abolished soon after the Nazis invaded in 1941, and the ethnic Germans exiled to Kazakhstan and Siberia.
I remember SamCam looking pretty bloody miserable when DC dragged her away for some holiday bash on Easyjet pretending to be "normal" whilst Osborne had no problem at all going to an exclusive skiing resort with his then missus.
Personally, I have no problem with politicians being who they are and not apologising for it. Rishi is a very rich man married to an extremely rich woman and can go wherever the hell he likes on holiday so far as I am concerned.
I am more concerned about a budget that did not do anything to help those facing serious real terms cuts in their already poor living standards as the increase in benefits is dwarfed by the current rise in inflation, who reduced VAT on home improvements for privately owned properties but didn't on heating costs. Who still thinks, despite the increase in the reliefs on NI, that earned income should still bear a higher tax rate than unearned income. Whose idea of help for those unable to heat their homes was a ridiculous loan available in several months time.
And no Labour, the answer to all of this is not some ridiculous windfall tax.
Perhaps, though, Sunak's great wealth and privileged lifestyle has a bearing, in that he doesn't really understand what it is like to scrape through life under a constant financial struggle? Same with Osborne and his 'austerity' (for the poor) programme. Certainly Sunak seems to lack genuine empathy with, for example, those who have no choice but to subsist on benefits.
I can see the argument. But someone that clever really should have a bit more imagination.
He’s a spreadsheet jockey. Doesn’t need imagination to work at Goldmans
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
PS You were always totally unwilling to accept that the C of E is a Catholic church. But now you do?!
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
There were many who last week criticised Biden for calling Putin a war criminal. I wonder how many of them would still hold to that criticism now they have seen what the Russians have been doing in Ukraine?
The idea that someone could look at Russia right now and say "hmm, maybe what's needed is a dictator" boggles me. It's the stupidest thing I've read on here (and I was here for when HYUFD claimed that you couldn't get from London to Cambridge without entering Essex).
The M11, the main road route from London to Cambridge, goes through Essex
The A10 does not.
So you can choose to go into Essex or not. Literally nobody thinks you can't possibly go through Essex, and only one person, you, thinks you HAVE to.
When Samuel Pepys went from London to Cambridge, a favorite journey for him, he almost always went one of the Hertfordshire routes, which had a number of alternatives. Curiously he never chose the M11, though on one occasions he diverted to Audley End, near Saffron Walden in Essex. And IIRC once via Epping Forest.
He actually stayed in Epping on one such journey, as he notes in his diaries
That must have been a full page!
It was there that he was famously castigated for not being a Tory which sunk him into depression leading to him burying his Parmesan to protect it having been given warnings of war with Scotland.
The idea that someone could look at Russia right now and say "hmm, maybe what's needed is a dictator" boggles me. It's the stupidest thing I've read on here (and I was here for when HYUFD claimed that you couldn't get from London to Cambridge without entering Essex).
The M11, the main road route from London to Cambridge, goes through Essex
The A10 does not.
So you can choose to go into Essex or not. Literally nobody thinks you can't possibly go through Essex, and only one person, you, thinks you HAVE to.
When Samuel Pepys went from London to Cambridge, a favorite journey for him, he almost always went one of the Hertfordshire routes, which had a number of alternatives. Curiously he never chose the M11, though on one occasions he diverted to Audley End, near Saffron Walden in Essex. And IIRC once via Epping Forest.
He actually stayed in Epping on one such journey, as he notes in his diaries
That must have been a full page!
It was there that he was famously castigated for not being a Tory which sunk him into depression leading to him burying his Parmesan to protect it having been given warnings of war with Scotland.
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
The idea that someone could look at Russia right now and say "hmm, maybe what's needed is a dictator" boggles me. It's the stupidest thing I've read on here (and I was here for when HYUFD claimed that you couldn't get from London to Cambridge without entering Essex).
The M11, the main road route from London to Cambridge, goes through Essex
The A10 does not.
So you can choose to go into Essex or not. Literally nobody thinks you can't possibly go through Essex, and only one person, you, thinks you HAVE to.
When Samuel Pepys went from London to Cambridge, a favorite journey for him, he almost always went one of the Hertfordshire routes, which had a number of alternatives. Curiously he never chose the M11, though on one occasions he diverted to Audley End, near Saffron Walden in Essex. And IIRC once via Epping Forest.
He actually stayed in Epping on one such journey, as he notes in his diaries
That must have been a full page!
It was there that he was famously castigated for not being a Tory which sunk him into depression leading to him burying his Parmesan to protect it having been given warnings of war with Scotland.
Netherlands, you mean?
Was a HYUFD dig…..
Sorry, have read too much about the naval history of that era, with Charles II, James VII & II, Pepys, and De Ruyter and the little affair of the Medway.
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
There were many who last week criticised Biden for calling Putin a war criminal. I wonder how many of them would still hold to that criticism now they have seen what the Russians have been doing in Ukraine?
Unfortunately Biden did make several other huge gaffes which imply he should just not speak ever, and delegate his entire job to younger underlings, and retire in 2024
Scots born Australian Eric Bogle wrote a few good anti war songs. As well as And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda, he also wrote The Green Fields Of France “ oh how do you do, young willy mcbride do you mind if i sit here down by your graveside and rest for a while in the warm summer sun i've been walking all day, and im nearly done and i see by your gravestone you were only nineteen when you joined the great fallen in 1916 well i hope you died quick and i hope you died clean oh willy mcbride, was is it slow and obscene did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest and did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind in some loyal heart is your memory enshrined and though you died back in 1916 to that loyal heart you're forever nineteen or are you a stranger without even a name forever enshrined behind some old glass pane in an old photograph torn, tattered, and stained and faded to yellow in a brown leather frame did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest the sun shining down on these green fields of france the warm wind blows gently and the red poppies dance the trenches have vanished long under the plow no gas, no barbed wire, no guns firing down but here in this graveyard that's still no mans land the countless white crosses in mute witness stand till' man's blind indifference to his fellow man and a whole generation were butchered and damned did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest and i can't help but wonder oh willy mcbride do all those who lie here know why they died did you really believe them when they told you the cause did you really believe that this war would end wars well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame the killing and dying it was all done in vain oh willy mcbride it all happened again and again, and again, and again, and again did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest”
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Eric Bogle also wrote “My Youngest Son Came Home Today” about Northern Ireland. My youngest son came home today His friends marched with him all the way The pipes and drum beat out the time While in his box of polished pine Like dead meat on a butcher's tray My youngest son came home today My youngest son was a fine young man With a wife, a daughter and two sons A man he would have lived and died Till by a bullet sanctified Now he's a saint or so they say They brought their young saint home today Above the narrow Belfast streets An Irish sky looks down and weeps At children's blood in gutters spilled In dreams of freedom unfulfilled As part of freedom's price to pay My youngest son came home today My youngest son came home today His friends marched with him all the way The pipe and drum beat out the time While in his box of polished pine Like dead meat on a butcher's tray My youngest son came home today And this time he's home to stay
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
BBC bosses have readvertised the job of political editor after being unhappy with the choice of candidates to replace Laura Kuenssberg in one of the most influential roles in British journalism.
Following weeks of interviews and an extensive recruitment process, the corporation had produced an all-female shortlist for the role, with ITV News’s Anushka Asthana and Sky News’s Sophy Ridge believed to be the final two candidates. An announcement on which of them would get the job had been expected to coincide with Kuenssberg stepping down last week.
Instead, the BBC political correspondent Chris Mason is now the favourite to land the role after bosses quietly began inviting fresh applications for the job. The recruitment page for the role of political editor has been reopened until Tuesday, although there has been no acknowledgement of this from senior staff or formal announcement from the BBC encouraging fresh applications.
Mason is widely liked across the BBC but one media industry executive pointed out the BBC could be about to reject “an all-female shortlist of brilliant women” in favour of a man.
Reopening applications will allow Mason to send in his CV – but will also make it possible for anyone else to apply and is a public sign that executives are not content with the existing range of candidates. In recent days, there had been speculation that BBC executives were unhappy with the process and were seeking other candidates for the role.
I wonder if Isabel Hardman would be considered an option? Or whether she would fancy it. She comes across as completely non-ideological. Someone who just tells you what is going on.
The fact such a plum role is short of applicants rather sadly tells its own story. Did the BBC initially insist on an all woman shortlist?
Hardman is not quoted in the betting. Here are Star Sports' prices:-
Chris Mason 9/4 Anushka Asthana 5/2 Sophy Ridge 11/4 Alex Forsyth 7/2 Sam Coates 9/2 Paul Brand 11/2 Faisal Islam 8/1 Adam Fleming 9/1 Lewis Goodall 10/1 James Landale 12/1 Pippa Crerar 12/1 Ros Atkins 16/1 Beth Rigby 20/1 Emma Vardy 20/1 Nick Watt 20/1 Nick Eardley 33/1 Jonathan Blake 40/1 Ione Wells 50/1 Gary Gibbon 66/1 Others Upon Request
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
And I have news for you, but better now than when you are writing your funeral wishes in your will. It's been illegal to be buried "in" a church, C of E or not, since the mid-C19. (Apart from CHurchill etc.).
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle, and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
Is there any pressure to come to the aid of Ukraine on the government? Much more of Bucha and I can see that demand in many countries, even this one.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
And I have news for you, but better now than when you are writing your funeral wishes in your will. It's been illegal to be buried "inside" a church, C of E or not, since the mid-C19. (Apart from CHurchill etc.).
You sure of that? If so, how is 'burial' defined? Plenty of examples of ashes being interred inside a church e.g. those of Stanley Baldwin.
The Somerset and Frome MP David Warburton - suspended by the @Conservatives from the parliamentary party following allegations about his conduct in the #sundaytimes -has been admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from severe shock and stress, according to his wife Harriet https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1510618374883225610
Mental health is a serious issue and sadly is becoming very common
Maybe give him some space
What about his alleged victim?
This smacks of the Prince Andrew defence. "The Falklands War changed me..."
He has been admitted to a psychiatric hospital which requires serious mental health issues, sectioning, or suicide tendency
He must face justice in due course but as with all mental health issues nobody benefits from lack of understanding
I suspect the MP in question has checked himself in to some private facility. It strikes me as rather convenient on the day his alleged behaviour, or should I say, and let's not forget, his alleged criminality is busted by the Sunday Times.
I take nothing away from anyone struggling with mental health issues, but in this instance, colour me skeptical. Didn't Keith Vaz take a similarly convenient route when he found himself in a spot of bother?
Even if he did I just do not understand how pilling onto him helps anyone
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
And I have news for you, but better now than when you are writing your funeral wishes in your will. It's been illegal to be buried "inside" a church, C of E or not, since the mid-C19. (Apart from CHurchill etc.).
You sure of that? If so, how is 'burial' defined? Plenty of examples of ashes being interred inside a church e.g. those of Stanley Baldwin.
Quite right. Of course cremation wasn't a thing during the big mid-Victorian sanitary reforms and establishment of separate cemeteries. But intramural interment even of ashes is still pretty unusual for the average punter so far as I am aware. And of course Churchill was buried in the village churchyard enar Blenheim - my slip there. Replace with 'Royalty etc.'
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
That's strange.
I was looking at the results from last time, the Diaspora' voted 96.24% for Orban. which would normally be considered overwhelming. by adding there votes he increased his vote% total form 47.36% to 49.27% which seems a big impact.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
Pretty much the whole of history and moral philosophy have passed you by, haven't they? Where do you think Lutherans and RCs stand on same sex marriages, and why do you expect a religious belief system to privilege "human rights" over divine ordinances?
Hungary shows what happens when politicians are hell bent on weakening democracy and are allowed several election cycles to do this.
The opposition finally decided to combine forces but too late when the dice were totally loaded against them . For this reason the Tories must be removed from office at the next GE before they do even more damage to the country .
After their voter suppression legislation , attack on the right to protest , next will be human rights . Labour, Lib Dems , Greens must work together to remove this cesspit government .
"In September 2021, Russia has adopted a state technical standard for digging and maintaining mass graves amid wartime. It took effect on Feb 1st 2022."
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
The Roman Catholic church is the largest church in France, Spain, Italy, Poland and even Germany now. Greece is Orthodox.
Currently the Church of England is a broad church encompassing Anglo Catholics, liberals, right through to evangelicals. End it as the established church and the Anglo Catholics would move back to Rome and the evangelicals to become Baptists, Pentecostals etc. The Roman Catholic v evangelical divide would dominate as it does in most of the rest of the Christian world, including Africa and Latin America, leaving the Anglican church as a minority liberal church.
If you think the Church of England is anti gay marriage and abortion, you wait until a resurgent Roman Catholic and Baptist churches use their energy to press their case in the political arena as they do in the USA for instance or Italy. They really are anti gay marriage and fervently anti abortion. The Church of England however at least allows gay clergy now. The Roman Catholics don't yet even allow women priests!
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
How shore are we that these elections are 'Free and Fair'?
Leon said: » show previous quotes On this, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the brainwashed Russian people seem to be foursquare behind Putin and his New Patriotic War, and all the active dissident elements - mainly the net-savvy young - have either fled already, or been silenced by brutal repression
The only hope is a palace coup, but as the elite are all implicated that seems unlikely.
That leaves three more likely outcomes. 1. Russian is so heavily defeated we can actually enforce regime change as the people DO turn against him as they starve to death. 2. A terrible “peace” which leaves Russian with a sort of victory which is then followed by many years of Cold War. 3. A total all out west-v-Russia/China war which probably destroys half of human life.
Sometimes, a benevolent, stable dictatorship is what a political situation screams for. I fear Russia has reached that point. But good luck finding a benevolent dictator who both is effective/successful in turning Russia into a liberal democracy and stays benevolent during the decade or two that it will take.
Yes, what's needed to remedy that is a way of removing the benevolent dictator. Some sort of system that periodically takes the views of the largest number of people into account. There would need to be safeguards, such as expressing your opinion in secret, and everybody being allowed to only have one say.
If only there were such a system.
So clever and funny. The whole point of the post is that a Russian democratic election at the moment will not yield a nice, cuddly Russia.
That's democracy, Kyle.
And the point is that democracy is not always the answer.
Although it usually turns out to be the least-worst answer (as per Churchill).
But you make a good point: apparently even Navalny is pretty full-on a Russian nationalist and probably would agree with the principal of attacking Ukraine, although maybe he might have been more likely to decide the risk was not worth the reward than Putin.
Navalny is a nationalist who has argued that invading Ukraine would and will be a disaster for Russia.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
Pretty much the whole of history and moral philosophy have passed you by, haven't they? Where do you think Lutherans and RCs stand on same sex marriages, and why do you expect a religious belief system to privilege "human rights" over divine ordinances?
Basic reading comprehension seems to entirely passed you by doesn't it?
Try pointing to something in my post that your reply has even a tiny bit of relevance to?
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
How shore are we that these elections are 'Free and Fair'?
I think they are generally considered to be free but not fair.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
This is the most confusing element of the whole operation. Before all this, there was some credibility to Putin's assertions about wanting to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Eastern Europe. But that does not exist any more. Ruskiy Mir now looks more like psychopathic poundland colonialism. Like some sort of terrifying wife beating uncle that everyone tries to avoid.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
Pretty much the whole of history and moral philosophy have passed you by, haven't they? Where do you think Lutherans and RCs stand on same sex marriages, and why do you expect a religious belief system to privilege "human rights" over divine ordinances?
Basic reading comprehension seems to entirely passed you by doesn't it?
Try pointing to something in my post that your reply has even a tiny bit of relevance to?
Like I said "every resident" my arse"
Every resident is entitled to all the services on offer.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
An investigative journalist has claimed that doomed media tycoon Robert Maxwell didn't have any loyalties in an eye-opening new documentary, which delves into the last few years of his life at the helm of his financially struggling publishing empire.
The first episode of BBC's House of Maxwell, which airs on BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm, reveals that Robert Maxwell had ties to Russia's KGB and MI6, even wanting Britain's intelligence agency to fund his publishing company.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
In practice, if we disestablished the buildings' titles would be vested in the local diocese. It would be the endowments that the state would seek to claw back (as happened in Wales).
I would point out that for the last 85 years, since 1936 (in practice) churches have been maintained by congregations so I think your claims about 'ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe extortion' is at best an exaggeration. Very few churches in their current form date from the pre-Victorian era anyway.
BBC re-advertises for £260,000-a-year role as it reconsiders all-female shortlist to succeed Laura Kuenssberg
The BBC has re-advertised for the £260,000-a-year role after interviewing shortlisted candidates including Anushka Asthana, the ITV News political editor, and Sophy Ridge of Sky.
Pippa Crerar, of The Mirror, and the BBC's Alex Forsyth were also thought to be in the running.
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle, and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
Is there any pressure to come to the aid of Ukraine on the government? Much more of Bucha and I can see that demand in many countries, even this one.
Certainly not separate from NATO, and the Estonian government is doing as much as it can. On a per capita basis it is contributing 200 times more than the UK, and taking in more refugees as an absolute number.
I think there are three things to watch: the first is any move to overthrow Lukashenka in Belarus; the second the fate of Kadyrov in Chechnya, his loss would cripple Putin; and the third would be problems in the armed forces of Russia itself.
As far as the overall military position is concerned, at the moment the Russians are still advancing in the East and holding on in the South, but if the Ukrainians begin to push back then the situation could get very brittle quite quickly. The Russians are struggling to find troops as it is, and if the losses in the north are really in the 22,000+ range then the situation is very bad for them. More NATO kit for the Ukrainians could tip the balance to the point where Russia is simply unable to continue the fight. That could be a period of maximum danger for the West, but equally few governments survive that kind of defeat.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Talking about decision making and anti-war songs, S-O-R-R-Y by the Proclaimers is a standout. Well, I say anti-war, it is by implication. It's more anti-journalists-tubthumping-for-war. Very powerful musically, deliberately discordant, it moves me every time. I have never checked to see whether they had a particular person in mind when writing it, but I have my suspicions.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
BBC bosses have readvertised the job of political editor after being unhappy with the choice of candidates to replace Laura Kuenssberg in one of the most influential roles in British journalism.
Following weeks of interviews and an extensive recruitment process, the corporation had produced an all-female shortlist for the role, with ITV News’s Anushka Asthana and Sky News’s Sophy Ridge believed to be the final two candidates. An announcement on which of them would get the job had been expected to coincide with Kuenssberg stepping down last week.
Instead, the BBC political correspondent Chris Mason is now the favourite to land the role after bosses quietly began inviting fresh applications for the job. The recruitment page for the role of political editor has been reopened until Tuesday, although there has been no acknowledgement of this from senior staff or formal announcement from the BBC encouraging fresh applications.
Mason is widely liked across the BBC but one media industry executive pointed out the BBC could be about to reject “an all-female shortlist of brilliant women” in favour of a man.
Reopening applications will allow Mason to send in his CV – but will also make it possible for anyone else to apply and is a public sign that executives are not content with the existing range of candidates. In recent days, there had been speculation that BBC executives were unhappy with the process and were seeking other candidates for the role.
I wonder if Isabel Hardman would be considered an option? Or whether she would fancy it. She comes across as completely non-ideological. Someone who just tells you what is going on.
The fact such a plum role is short of applicants rather sadly tells its own story. Did the BBC initially insist on an all woman shortlist?
Hardman is not quoted in the betting. Here are Star Sports' prices:-
Chris Mason 9/4 Anushka Asthana 5/2 Sophy Ridge 11/4 Alex Forsyth 7/2 Sam Coates 9/2 Paul Brand 11/2 Faisal Islam 8/1 Adam Fleming 9/1 Lewis Goodall 10/1 James Landale 12/1 Pippa Crerar 12/1 Ros Atkins 16/1 Beth Rigby 20/1 Emma Vardy 20/1 Nick Watt 20/1 Nick Eardley 33/1 Jonathan Blake 40/1 Ione Wells 50/1 Gary Gibbon 66/1 Others Upon Request
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
No it doesn't. The PCC has the right to access it for the purpose of maintaining it as a place of worship for the community, but they don't own it. The freehold is held by the corporation sole in the person of the incumbent, but they hold it in qualified fee, i.e. they cannot sell or transfer title.
In the real world, of course, you are right, as was established in Camomile Street (1990) that the ownership is de facto vested in the parish which is administered on behalf of its parishioners by the PCC. However, the structure as it stands has definite implications for any change of ownership. As in, would make it extremely difficult.
What about Rolf's Two Little Boys as an anti-war song?
Not for me. Too sentimental and the overall message is ambiguous.
Rolf on small children? Really?
Yes I suppose there's that as well. But it wasn't known at the time. Got to number one, I think. Introduced on TOTP by ... well I don't know since we don't hear it now. Which is ok by me.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
That's a stretch, don't you think? I really doubt if either (a) people who feel there's still a worrying amount of Covid are doing so because of Brexit or (b) whether decisions by French, German or Chhinese tournists about where to go on holiday are based on a study of the foreign media.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
In practice, if we disestablished the buildings' titles would be vested in the local diocese. It would be the endowments that the state would seek to claw back (as happened in Wales).
I would point out that for the last 85 years, since 1936 (in practice) churches have been maintained by congregations so I think your claims about 'ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe extortion' is at best an exaggeration. Very few churches in their current form date from the pre-Victorian era anyway.
Yebbut the ones we actually want didn't make it all the way through from C12th to 1936 without money being spent on them. Due credit will of course be given for the net proceeds of all them village fetes, 1937-2023.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Hear the words I sing War’s a horrid thing So I sing, sing, sing Ding-a-ling a ling.
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
What about the Heath and Regents Park? Doesn't that work for you when you're here in NL?
The Heath does - for a walk. But it's the sense of enclosure which is what is different. I have horizons there. I have always loved being near the sea. In Naples - which is urban to the nth degree - it was a 5 minute walk down to the sea. If I had to end my life I would go into the sea, not bloody Dignitas.
And you can stare at the sea for hours. It is never ever boring.
I've done *alot* of walking around this country. And whilst I know what you mean, scenery becomes a little boring after a while. The great thing about London is the sheer variety, both in views and the people. This can be seen in (say) a seven-mile walk along the Regents Canal from Mile End to Paddington, seven miles along the Thames Path, or seven miles south from Greenwich.
If you want boring, try walking around Loch Long. Three days just to end up a couple of kilometres from where you began ...
I agree re London walks. They are interesting. But I never find scenery boring because there is so much to notice - the plants, the trees, the light, the shadows on rocks, the animals etc.
One of the things I was told by an old gardening hand was to walk round your garden every single day and simply look closely. You'd think that there would be no change from day to day but you'd be wrong. And learning how to really see has been a blessing. And once you start doing it there is so much to observe. Partly because of my asthma I rarely walks for long periods without stopping. But also because I am always seeing all sorts of things up close - even the beauty of a gorse bush - or moss or lichen on a stone- or the pattern of a dry stone wall or ferns growing out the ground or a wall.
Honestly I could bore you all for hours about it. Don't worry. I won't.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Depends what the Crown in Parliament ordains dunnit.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Talking about decision making and anti-war songs, S-O-R-R-Y by the Proclaimers is a standout. Well, I say anti-war, it is by implication. It's more anti-journalists-tubthumping-for-war. Very powerful musically, deliberately discordant, it moves me every time. I have never checked to see whether they had a particular person in mind when writing it, but I have my suspicions.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Hear the words I sing War’s a horrid thing So I sing, sing, sing Ding-a-ling a ling.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Hear the words I sing War’s a horrid thing So I sing, sing, sing Ding-a-ling a ling.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Hear the words I sing War’s a horrid thing So I sing, sing, sing Ding-a-ling a ling.
Is that satirizing the genre of antiwar songs?
Copy and paste from blackadder. Called a "low effort post" in the trade.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
An investigative journalist has claimed that doomed media tycoon Robert Maxwell didn't have any loyalties in an eye-opening new documentary, which delves into the last few years of his life at the helm of his financially struggling publishing empire.
The first episode of BBC's House of Maxwell, which airs on BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm, reveals that Robert Maxwell had ties to Russia's KGB and MI6, even wanting Britain's intelligence agency to fund his publishing company.
Didn’t Pergamon Press translate and publish a lot of Soviet Bloc content? They were the Ceausescus’ English-language vanity publishers IIRC.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
The North Africa campaign in WW2 has the reputation of having been a 'clean' war. I've heard a number of anecdotes to that effect and can add one from my Dad's war experience.
He was wounded at Tobruk and taken by ambulance along the coast road to Alexandria where he boarded a hospital ship for South Africa and full recovery. Since much of the road was held by the Germans he assumes they allowed a Red Cross vehicle through. I remember him saying to me once that it was probably down the individuals on the check points at the time. Some were better than others but if it was one of Rommel's troops you had a decent chance of civilised treatment.
BBC bosses have readvertised the job of political editor after being unhappy with the choice of candidates to replace Laura Kuenssberg in one of the most influential roles in British journalism.
Following weeks of interviews and an extensive recruitment process, the corporation had produced an all-female shortlist for the role, with ITV News’s Anushka Asthana and Sky News’s Sophy Ridge believed to be the final two candidates. An announcement on which of them would get the job had been expected to coincide with Kuenssberg stepping down last week.
Instead, the BBC political correspondent Chris Mason is now the favourite to land the role after bosses quietly began inviting fresh applications for the job. The recruitment page for the role of political editor has been reopened until Tuesday, although there has been no acknowledgement of this from senior staff or formal announcement from the BBC encouraging fresh applications.
Mason is widely liked across the BBC but one media industry executive pointed out the BBC could be about to reject “an all-female shortlist of brilliant women” in favour of a man.
Reopening applications will allow Mason to send in his CV – but will also make it possible for anyone else to apply and is a public sign that executives are not content with the existing range of candidates. In recent days, there had been speculation that BBC executives were unhappy with the process and were seeking other candidates for the role.
I wonder if Isabel Hardman would be considered an option? Or whether she would fancy it. She comes across as completely non-ideological. Someone who just tells you what is going on.
The fact such a plum role is short of applicants rather sadly tells its own story. Did the BBC initially insist on an all woman shortlist?
Hardman is not quoted in the betting. Here are Star Sports' prices:-
Chris Mason 9/4 Anushka Asthana 5/2 Sophy Ridge 11/4 Alex Forsyth 7/2 Sam Coates 9/2 Paul Brand 11/2 Faisal Islam 8/1 Adam Fleming 9/1 Lewis Goodall 10/1 James Landale 12/1 Pippa Crerar 12/1 Ros Atkins 16/1 Beth Rigby 20/1 Emma Vardy 20/1 Nick Watt 20/1 Nick Eardley 33/1 Jonathan Blake 40/1 Ione Wells 50/1 Gary Gibbon 66/1 Others Upon Request
That looks quite a big overround.
AA would be my choice if I were the Beeb.
Why ? I’ve not really seen a lot of her work.
She's crisp and intelligent and runs on a low cliche quotient.
I like some of the other possibles too but I'd go with her.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
In practice, if we disestablished the buildings' titles would be vested in the local diocese. It would be the endowments that the state would seek to claw back (as happened in Wales).
I would point out that for the last 85 years, since 1936 (in practice) churches have been maintained by congregations so I think your claims about 'ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe extortion' is at best an exaggeration. Very few churches in their current form date from the pre-Victorian era anyway.
Yebbut the ones we actually want didn't make it all the way through from C12th to 1936 without money being spent on them. Due credit will of course be given for the net proceeds of all them village fetes, 1937-2023.
What adjustment will you make for (a) tithe payers who were members of the congregation and (b) inflation?
Comments
Chris Mason 9/4
Anushka Asthana 5/2
Sophy Ridge 11/4
Alex Forsyth 7/2
Sam Coates 9/2
Paul Brand 11/2
Faisal Islam 8/1
Adam Fleming 9/1
Lewis Goodall 10/1
James Landale 12/1
Pippa Crerar 12/1
Ros Atkins 16/1
Beth Rigby 20/1
Emma Vardy 20/1
Nick Watt 20/1
Nick Eardley 33/1
Jonathan Blake 40/1
Ione Wells 50/1
Gary Gibbon 66/1
Others Upon Request
Very very sad, but we might be at that point again.
I always liked Country Joe and the Fish’s Feel Like I’m Fixing To Die
Well, come on all of you, big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun
And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven
Open up the pearly gates
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die
Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last
Now you can go out and get those reds
'Cause the only good commie is the one that's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come
Come on Wall Street, don't be slow
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb
They drop it on the Viet Cong
Come on mothers throughout the land
Pack your boys off to Vietnam
Come on fathers, and don't hesitate
To send your sons off before it's too late
And you can be the first ones in your block
To have your boy come home in a box
A good anti-war popular song is a deeply powerful thing
But as I already said. There is perhaps a valid argument for the persuasion argument even if I personally think it is pointless.
Support for Putin's incarceration - now that's a thing.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
is this because each of the party's who make up the main opposition are standing against each other in the constituency's? but a common list in the national PR section?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_German_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
PS You were always totally unwilling to accept that the C of E is a Catholic church. But now you do?!
If only there was similar resolve in Germany.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
“ oh how do you do, young willy mcbride
do you mind if i sit here down by your graveside
and rest for a while in the warm summer sun
i've been walking all day, and im nearly done
and i see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
when you joined the great fallen in 1916
well i hope you died quick
and i hope you died clean
oh willy mcbride, was is it slow and obscene
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest
and did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind
in some loyal heart is your memory enshrined
and though you died back in 1916
to that loyal heart you're forever nineteen
or are you a stranger without even a name
forever enshrined behind some old glass pane
in an old photograph torn, tattered, and stained
and faded to yellow in a brown leather frame
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest
the sun shining down on these green fields of france
the warm wind blows gently and the red poppies dance
the trenches have vanished long under the plow
no gas, no barbed wire, no guns firing down
but here in this graveyard that's still no mans land
the countless white crosses in mute witness stand
till' man's blind indifference to his fellow man
and a whole generation were butchered and damned
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest
and i can't help but wonder oh willy mcbride
do all those who lie here know why they died
did you really believe them when they told you the cause
did you really believe that this war would end wars
well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame
the killing and dying it was all done in vain
oh willy mcbride it all happened again
and again, and again, and again, and again
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest”
My youngest son came home today
His friends marched with him all the way
The pipes and drum beat out the time
While in his box of polished pine
Like dead meat on a butcher's tray
My youngest son came home today
My youngest son was a fine young man
With a wife, a daughter and two sons
A man he would have lived and died
Till by a bullet sanctified
Now he's a saint or so they say
They brought their young saint home today
Above the narrow Belfast streets
An Irish sky looks down and weeps
At children's blood in gutters spilled
In dreams of freedom unfulfilled
As part of freedom's price to pay
My youngest son came home today
My youngest son came home today
His friends marched with him all the way
The pipe and drum beat out the time
While in his box of polished pine
Like dead meat on a butcher's tray
My youngest son came home today
And this time he's home to stay
AA would be my choice if I were the Beeb.
Not for me. Too sentimental and the overall message is ambiguous.
Congratulations on your 50,000 posts!
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2005/4-november/news/uk/church-ownership-stays-uncertain
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
I was looking at the results from last time, the Diaspora' voted 96.24% for Orban. which would normally be considered overwhelming. by adding there votes he increased his vote% total form 47.36% to 49.27% which seems a big impact.
Russian tanks feared to be radioactive after passing close to Chernobyl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XMAiURcYXw
The opposition finally decided to combine forces but too late when the dice were totally loaded against them . For this reason the Tories must be removed from office at the next GE before they do even more damage to the country .
After their voter suppression legislation , attack on the right to protest , next will be human rights . Labour, Lib Dems , Greens must work together to remove this cesspit government .
"In September 2021, Russia has adopted a state technical standard for digging and maintaining mass graves amid wartime. It took effect on Feb 1st 2022."
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1510169194465271812
Currently the Church of England is a broad church encompassing Anglo Catholics, liberals, right through to evangelicals. End it as the established church and the Anglo Catholics would move back to Rome and the evangelicals to become Baptists, Pentecostals etc. The Roman Catholic v evangelical divide would dominate as it does in most of the rest of the Christian world, including Africa and Latin America, leaving the Anglican church as a minority liberal church.
If you think the Church of England is anti gay marriage and abortion, you wait until a resurgent Roman Catholic and Baptist churches use their energy to press their case in the political arena as they do in the USA for instance or Italy. They really are anti gay marriage and fervently anti abortion. The Church of England however at least allows gay clergy now. The Roman Catholics don't yet even allow women priests!
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
Try pointing to something in my post that your reply has even a tiny bit of relevance to?
Like I said "every resident" my arse"
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
The first episode of BBC's House of Maxwell, which airs on BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm, reveals that Robert Maxwell had ties to Russia's KGB and MI6, even wanting Britain's intelligence agency to fund his publishing company.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
I would point out that for the last 85 years, since 1936 (in practice) churches have been maintained by congregations so I think your claims about 'ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe extortion' is at best an exaggeration. Very few churches in their current form date from the pre-Victorian era anyway.
The BBC has re-advertised for the £260,000-a-year role after interviewing shortlisted candidates including Anushka Asthana, the ITV News political editor, and Sophy Ridge of Sky.
Pippa Crerar, of The Mirror, and the BBC's Alex Forsyth were also thought to be in the running.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/03/chris-mason-new-favourite-become-bbc-political-editor/
I think there are three things to watch: the first is any move to overthrow Lukashenka in Belarus; the second the fate of Kadyrov in Chechnya, his loss would cripple Putin; and the third would be problems in the armed forces of Russia itself.
As far as the overall military position is concerned, at the moment the Russians are still advancing in the East and holding on in the South, but if the Ukrainians begin to push back then the situation could get very brittle quite quickly. The Russians are struggling to find troops as it is, and if the losses in the north are really in the 22,000+ range then the situation is very bad for them. More NATO kit for the Ukrainians could tip the balance to the point where Russia is simply unable to continue the fight. That could be a period of maximum danger for the West, but equally few governments survive that kind of defeat.
More here if you're really interested:
https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ffdd147bb3/content/pages/documents/cba2f216182c55d5debfc9df787530d2255e0bbe.pdf
In the real world, of course, you are right, as was established in Camomile Street (1990) that the ownership is de facto vested in the parish which is administered on behalf of its parishioners by the PCC. However, the structure as it stands has definite implications for any change of ownership. As in, would make it extremely difficult.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
War’s a horrid thing
So I sing, sing, sing
Ding-a-ling a ling.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
He was wounded at Tobruk and taken by ambulance along the coast road to Alexandria where he boarded a hospital ship for South Africa and full recovery. Since much of the road was held by the Germans he assumes they allowed a Red Cross vehicle through. I remember him saying to me once that it was probably down the individuals on the check points at the time. Some were better than others but if it was one of Rommel's troops you had a decent chance of civilised treatment.
I like some of the other possibles too but I'd go with her.