Crisis, what crisis? – politicalbetting.com

Scott_xP said:

💥 🍷 NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.

FPNs also issued over the No10 party in April 2021.

(w @evansma & @benrileysmith)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/03/governments-former-ethics-chief-helen-macnamara-fined-raucous/

Sounds like something girls & boys at The Onion would dream up, on a good day.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?

It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.

The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.

The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.

The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts

Richard_Nabavi said:

File under 'you couldn't make it up'.

NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.

https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1510718992180256771

If anything it is a little bit too expected.

moonshine said:

BigRich said:

FrankBooth said:

Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!

It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.

I think that the Belorussian army would have mutated or defected n mass if sent in to Ukraine and that's the only reason they where not sent. it could still happen when the Russian troops redeploy, but I suspect now the prospect of being sent to war that you disagree with is off the table, that people will not what to put there heads above the parapet.

Perhaps. But I wouldn’t rule out the nice men from Langley dropping in with some briefcases full of incentives.

I’ve long had a feeling Belarus could be an important key to the defeat of Putin. A military mutiny or coup, supported on the streets, and suddenly it all comes crashing down. The WW2 analogue would be Italy ditching Mussolini and switching sides.

A democratic Belarus on the path to EU accession would be nice to see.

Just getting embarrassing.

President says first lady Jill Biden was Obama's vice president
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10681745/President-says-lady-Jill-Biden-VP-latest-gaffe.html

TRT World
@trtworld
Serbia’s President Vucic walks out of a fridge on TV ahead of the April 3 presidential elections in the country.


https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1509719701504598019

solarflare said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

For those of us in need of a bit of cheering up, I give you "The Greatest Shot in Television":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WoDQBhJCVQ

That is pretty cool.

I remember watching "Connections" when it first came out and being amazed by it: I'm not sure that it has had an equal (possibly "Cosmos" or "Life on Earth"?)

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

Nope. The Church of Norway was disestablished in 2012. It is no more part of the State than any other religion now.

And in Denmark the Head of State is not the Head of the Church. The legal responsibility for the Church falls ona specific Government minister.

So you are wrong in both those cases. Indeed as I said, none of the other European constitutional monarchies has the Head of State as the head of religion. All the others are disestablished.

rottenborough said:

TRT World
@trtworld
Serbia’s President Vucic walks out of a fridge on TV ahead of the April 3 presidential elections in the country.


https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1509719701504598019

A reverse-Boris?

BigRich said:

moonshine said:

BigRich said:

FrankBooth said:

Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!

It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.

I think that the Belorussian army would have mutated or defected n mass if sent in to Ukraine and that's the only reason they where not sent. it could still happen when the Russian troops redeploy, but I suspect now the prospect of being sent to war that you disagree with is off the table, that people will not what to put there heads above the parapet.

Perhaps. But I wouldn’t rule out the nice men from Langley dropping in with some briefcases full of incentives.

maybe

For what its worth, I understand there quite a few Belarussians fighting alongside the Ukrainians at the moment.

Some where there already fighting in the Dombras, but since this all kicked off, many from the dissident/exile/diaspora have come back to fight, and others have deserted from the army in Belorussia. the biggest unit is abbot 300 strong, and there are others fighting in separate units. perhaps with the fighting experience they have they could return? if Lukashenko is as unpopular as thought might any unit sent to fight the dissidents defect?

There is some partisan activity in Belarus already, albeit small scale.

❗️Rail War: Belarusian partisans have committed at least 10 successful sabotages on the railway since the beginning of the war in Ukraine.

This infographic shows the main events of the rail war over the past month.
1/3 https://t.co/1Lfzjy5ScT

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

TRT World
@trtworld
Serbia’s President Vucic walks out of a fridge on TV ahead of the April 3 presidential elections in the country.


https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1509719701504598019

Impact on his election or not, it's important for political leaders to fire whichever 20 year old spad suggests such silly stunts. Best case scenario no one cares, but it's still never as funny as the planners think. See crashing through foam bricks etc.

Worked years ago with a Boston "wise guy" consultant (true in more ways than one his case) who was in the entourage back in 1988 or thereabouts, on the very day when Mike Dukakis toured a tank factory, and was infamously filmed by his own crew driving a tank.

Which became the centerpiece for the 2nd-most effective Bush the Elder campaign commercial, the comic relief as it were to #1, the Willy Horton ad.

I asked my friend, what happened? He said (I paraphrase slightly) "I told them not to do it because it made the Governor look like a fucking idiot. But they went ahead and did it anyway."

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

Nope. The Church of Norway was disestablished in 2012. It is no more part of the State than any other religion now.

And in Denmark the Head of State is not the Head of the Church. The legal responsibility for the Church falls ona specific Government minister.

So you are wrong in both those cases. Indeed as I said, none of the other European constitutional monarchies has the Head of State as the head of religion. All the others are disestablished.

Article 16 of the Norwegian constitution makes clear the Church of Norway is 'the established Church' and that the state must support it. Article 4 also requires the Norwegian monarch to be a member of the Church of Norway.

Section 4 of the Constitution of Denmark also confirms the Church of the Denmark as the established church. The only reason the monarch is not the head of them is the Lutheran Church is an evangelical church not a Catholic church like the Church of England.
However in both nations it remains the established church under the constitution.

Thus in Norway 67% are Lutheran and only 3% Roman Catholic and in Denmark 74% are Lutheran and just 1.3% Roman Catholic. Whereas in virtually every other European nation, even the formerly Protestant majority Netherlands and Germany where there is no established church, either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is the largest church apart from the UK (mainly because of the Church of England)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Norway#:~:text=Religion in Norway is dominated,by 3.4% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Denmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany

Covid not looking good in China now

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1510064330301186050?s=20&t=XGZ8jlFSnvn9cMW7yacN4A

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?

It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.

The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.

The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.

The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts

This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.

solarflare said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alaska At-Large US House Special Election Primary June 11, 2022

Official final candidate list, including . . .

https://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/candidatelistspecprim.php

CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED)
PO BOX 55122
NORTH POLE, AK 99705
(907) 388-3836
Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET
Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM

PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED)
PO BOX 871235
WASILLA, AK 99687
(907) 631-0490
Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM

Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.

Plus MUCH less danger of fires actually being lite in Alaska chimneys in June as compared with December

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alaska At-Large US House Special Election Primary June 11, 2022

Official final candidate list, including . . .

https://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/candidatelistspecprim.php

CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED)
PO BOX 55122
NORTH POLE, AK 99705
(907) 388-3836
Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET
Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM

PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED)
PO BOX 871235
WASILLA, AK 99687
(907) 631-0490
Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM

is there a market in who gets though to the second round? if so it might be worth putting a few bob on Santa cause, Palin and the inevitably not Palin will sock up most of the vote, the rest will be split 49 ways, so getting a % or 2 might be enough and who wouldn't vote for Santa.

Foxy said:

BigRich said:

moonshine said:

BigRich said:

FrankBooth said:

Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!

It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.

I think that the Belorussian army would have mutated or defected n mass if sent in to Ukraine and that's the only reason they where not sent. it could still happen when the Russian troops redeploy, but I suspect now the prospect of being sent to war that you disagree with is off the table, that people will not what to put there heads above the parapet.

Perhaps. But I wouldn’t rule out the nice men from Langley dropping in with some briefcases full of incentives.

maybe

For what its worth, I understand there quite a few Belarussians fighting alongside the Ukrainians at the moment.

Some where there already fighting in the Dombras, but since this all kicked off, many from the dissident/exile/diaspora have come back to fight, and others have deserted from the army in Belorussia. the biggest unit is abbot 300 strong, and there are others fighting in separate units. perhaps with the fighting experience they have they could return? if Lukashenko is as unpopular as thought might any unit sent to fight the dissidents defect?

There is some partisan activity in Belarus already, albeit small scale.

❗️Rail War: Belarusian partisans have committed at least 10 successful sabotages on the railway since the beginning of the war in Ukraine.

This infographic shows the main events of the rail war over the past month.
1/3 https://t.co/1Lfzjy5ScT

Yes, I noticed that, very brave, but probably quite helpful to the Ukrainian war effort.

solarflare said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alaska At-Large US House Special Election Primary June 11, 2022

Official final candidate list, including . . .

https://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/candidatelistspecprim.php

CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED)
PO BOX 55122
NORTH POLE, AK 99705
(907) 388-3836
Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET
Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM

PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED)
PO BOX 871235
WASILLA, AK 99687
(907) 631-0490
Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM

Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.

Particularly iffy on electoral bribery though.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?

It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.

The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.

The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.

The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts

This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.

Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church

MrEd said:

Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:

1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.

2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.

I agree with the first, and tactically agree with the second.

But... I think Le Pen faces a very uphill battle in the second round of the French Presidential election. Macrons favorables are at a three and a half year high (https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/france/), and while -10 sounds bad... It's still 14 points better than Le Pen. I think her best chance comes from Macron complacency, and her poll surge makes that less likely. While she's a tradng buy into the first round, I suspect Macron ends up winning relatively comfortably in the second.

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

gettingbetter said:

MrEd said:

Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:

1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.

2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.

On the second point I very much agree with you tactically. By which I mean that it is going to look quite close and the markets often favour the more right wing candidate. Though I think on the day Macron may do a bit better than expected. So I have backed Le Pen hugely with rhe hope to trade out between R1 and R2.

That's my MO too on the French. And on USA as all know I'm supershort Trump. So, good grief, I'm with Mr Ed.

A pretty strong condemnation of France and Germany from Zelensky:

@mrsorokaa
⚡️ “I invite Merkel and Sarkozy to visit Bucha and to see the outcome of 14 years of concessions to Russia,” Zelensky said in his video address.

“You will see with your own eyes the tortured Ukrainians.”

https://twitter.com/mrsorokaa/status/1510691944938283009

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

He can make up whatever shite as a win he wants on state TV, which would be absolutely no different to what he's already been doing. So the argument that he needs something to sell to his own people makes no real sense.

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?

It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.

The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.

The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.

The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts

This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.

Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church

What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.

I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.

Orban is running at 54% with 84% counted according to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hungarian_parliamentary_election

Malmesbury said:

PaulD said:

rcs1000 said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?

Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists

Are you using a very strange VPN?

Asking for a friend.

I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?

It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.

The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.

The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.

The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts

This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.

Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church

As has already been pointed out to you by people who seemingly know a lot more about it than you, most of the Anglo-Catholics have already returned to the Catholic church over the issue of female ordination. A change of the figurehead at the top is not going to cause a mass exodus.

The greatest threat to your church is not Catholicism but agnosticism and atheism.

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

We politely ask the Ukrainian army to stop before the Chinese border. By offering Zelensky an Oscar for "Servant of the People", in return

That can be Putin's win.

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition

Malmesbury said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

We politely ask the Ukrainian army to stop before the Chinese border. By offering Zelensky an Oscar for "Servant of the People", in return

That can be Putin's win.

Indeed but totally unrealistic

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?

It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.

The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.

The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.

The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts

This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.

Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church

What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.

I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.

It’s not just me then! I find religious chatter dull enough, but the narcissism of small differences over one sect or other of the same religion is just taking mundanity to a whole new level.

Malmesbury said:

PaulD said:

Malmesbury said:

PaulD said:

rcs1000 said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?

Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists

Are you using a very strange VPN?

Asking for a friend.

I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this

Virgil Malloy : Who you calling bud, pal?
Turk Malloy : Who you calling pal, friend?
Virgil Malloy : Who you calling friend, jackass?
Turk Malloy : Don't call me a jackass.
Virgil Malloy : I just did call you a jackass.

Lol I'm still waiting for rcs to get back to me...I thought the "type" of people who worked at goldman sachs were renowned for their efficiency

I think there should be a new site policy. IP on a blacklist, automatic redirection to Conservative Home.....

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disestablishment now.

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.

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.

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

You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?

Well its a view.

They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.

In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south

The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.

The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.

If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.

Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too

I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well

In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope

So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?

It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.

The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.

The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.

The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts

This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.

Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church

As has already been pointed out to you by people who seemingly know a lot more about it than you, most of the Anglo-Catholics have already returned to eth Catholic church over the issue of female ordination. A change of the figurehead at the top is not going to cause a mass exodus.

The greatest threat to your church is not Catholicism but agnosticism and atheism.

Some by no means all. The Church of England would split on disestablishment with the Anglo Catholics going to Rome, the evangelicals going to become Baptists or Pentecostals leaving a small, largely liberal church remaining but with the Roman Catholic church again likely to become the largest church in England within a few decades.

Agnosticism and to a lesser extent atheism in England is rather irrelevant in a context where the Pope heads 1.3 billion Roman Catholics globally, over 20 times the entire UK population. Disestablishment means the Pope, not the monarch of the UK, again will in due course become the main spiritual head on earth in England and can bring his global powerbase to entrench that further. Remember too the global population is growing fastest in the developing world which is also the most religious part of the world

Simply not true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Yet another area in which you are wrong to add to the many others.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

PaulD said:

Malmesbury said:

PaulD said:

rcs1000 said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

PaulD said:

JACK_W said:

PaulD said:

Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move

Fixed it for you.

And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.

Please debate intelligently...thankyou

OK

Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.

I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try

Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?

Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists

Are you using a very strange VPN?

Asking for a friend.

I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this

Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!

Who is ogh

Richard_Nabavi said:

File under 'you couldn't make it up'.

NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.

https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1510718992180256771

We at last have the answer why they were having so many parties. They would have been bored rigid otherwise. I mean, what could the Head of Propriety and Ethics in a Johnson government possibly have to do?

Once they've sharpened their pencils and polished the phone and maybe filled the printer with paper and made a coffee it will be about ..... ooh, 9:15 am ..... with all those hours to fill.

Remember too that the woman in charge of the unit who wrote all the lockdown rules also broke them.

No wonder Boris thought everyone was complying with the rules if these were the people advising him.